I thought you had to be smart to get into MIT or Columbia University. Apparently not.
How stupid do you have to be to falsely represent yourself as someone carrying a bomb into the airport where two of the four 9/11 attack planes launched from? A lot of people risk life and limb in non-productive endeavors as the MIT sophomore did, but they don’t intentionally do things that are likely to shut down major transportation hubs. That takes a special kind of self-absorbed, ignorance-cultivated, stupidity - the kind that can only be cultivated in a “top” American university.
How stupid do you have to be to give the leader of the world’s leading terrorist state a global platform to propagandize against America? Once again, it is the kind of self-absorbed, over-indulgent, head-in-the-sand type of stupidity that can only be cultivated at a “top” American university.
How stupid do you have to be to allow the leader of the worlds leading terrorist state to maneuver you into a no-win situation?
There is nothing new to learn about this man. We know it all. He has told us what he stands for. Even if, as the university claims, he will be “challenged” by the students, what will it accomplish? Well, again, he holds all the cards. His mind will never be changed. He can filibuster so that only a limited number of questions can be asked, effectively eliminating the so-called challenge. If the students react to him as they did to the minutemen (which we all know is extremely unlikely), he is given propaganda to take back to his world showing the evidence that Americans are “rude and unholy.” It’s a no win situation, you idiots. Checkmate – he wins no matter what.
Once again, I ask “How stupid do you have to be to let this happen? How hungry for your 15 minutes of fame do you have to be to be eager to play a part in this fiasco? Apparently, you have to be stupid enough to believe the politically correct crap that is fed to students in our “top” universities in 2007, completely ignoring the lessons they should have learned on 9/11. Personally, I think it’s time for a major revision of the syllabus.
New York City officials, by contrast, saw right through the ruse to visit ground zero to lay a wreath in honor of the fallen – his fallen, not ours. What’s the moral of the story?
There are two really:
First, it makes you question the value of a college education, if these are the results.
Second, if you want a real education in New York City, join the NYPD or the FDNY, and stay as far as you can from Columbia University lest it infect you.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Monday, September 10, 2007
Celebrate the 9/11 Victory over Al-Qaeda
I remember the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11/2001. I was working from home when one of my co-workers, George, told me to turn on the television. What I remember most about the collapse was thinking to myself “I am watching tens of thousands of people die.” In the days following that attack, I heard Bin Laden (who has apparently now joined the decadent ranks of the $400 haircut club, judging by his recent youthful beard makeover) declare that this was a successful attack beyond any expectations. As usual, he lied.
I considered it a victory for the United States. These evil cowards should have been able to murder 40,000 of us as they worked in those towers and Bin Laden knew it and expected it. But guess what. They couldn’t. We (and by “we” I mean mainly the heroes at the FDNY and on flight 93) saved 37,000+ people. By any standard, saving 37,000+ innocent people is worth celebrating.
What I would like to see in celebration of 9/11 is a story or two on the news about the documented difference that one of these documented survivors has made to our world or to the war on terror. It disturbs me that that I have not seen that in the past six years. I would also like to see some statistics on how many children were born as a direct result of those 37,000+ people surviving that day. I would be willing to bet it is more than 3,000. In any case, even if it is 1, it is another defeat for the terrorists.
The mainstream media is unlikely to pursue such a positive American story, so come on Fox News. We need you to carry the banner for us once again. I am sure Geraldo could come up with thousand of these stories if he put his mind to it. But we don’t need thousands; we just need a few really good ones.
So when 9/11 comes around this year, celebrate it. Celebrate the victory of the noble innocents over the terrorists. Fly your American flag proudly. Fly it rain or shine, secure in the knowledge that that flag and the nation it represents will gladly endure a few drops of rain to mourn its victims and honor its heroes. Celebrate it for the entire month as though it has been declared “Victory on 9/11 month” because, declared or not, that’s what it is. At least, that’s how I see it here at the bottom.
I considered it a victory for the United States. These evil cowards should have been able to murder 40,000 of us as they worked in those towers and Bin Laden knew it and expected it. But guess what. They couldn’t. We (and by “we” I mean mainly the heroes at the FDNY and on flight 93) saved 37,000+ people. By any standard, saving 37,000+ innocent people is worth celebrating.
What I would like to see in celebration of 9/11 is a story or two on the news about the documented difference that one of these documented survivors has made to our world or to the war on terror. It disturbs me that that I have not seen that in the past six years. I would also like to see some statistics on how many children were born as a direct result of those 37,000+ people surviving that day. I would be willing to bet it is more than 3,000. In any case, even if it is 1, it is another defeat for the terrorists.
The mainstream media is unlikely to pursue such a positive American story, so come on Fox News. We need you to carry the banner for us once again. I am sure Geraldo could come up with thousand of these stories if he put his mind to it. But we don’t need thousands; we just need a few really good ones.
So when 9/11 comes around this year, celebrate it. Celebrate the victory of the noble innocents over the terrorists. Fly your American flag proudly. Fly it rain or shine, secure in the knowledge that that flag and the nation it represents will gladly endure a few drops of rain to mourn its victims and honor its heroes. Celebrate it for the entire month as though it has been declared “Victory on 9/11 month” because, declared or not, that’s what it is. At least, that’s how I see it here at the bottom.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Expand the Death Penalty - Part 1: The Premise
It’s not a question of whether the death penalty is going to be expanded. It’s a matter of who is going to expand it. Many of the states here in the U.S. have eliminated or severely limited the application of the death penalty over the years. The reasons given were that it was uncivilized, barbaric, we might convict an innocent person, and it brought “us” down to the level of the criminals. In short, it made us feel good to be merciful. We were stupid. We chose to be stupid because we were afraid of getting our hands dirty and bloody. Guess what. Our hands are dirty and bloody anyway.
Every day we turn on the news (some of us do, anyway) only to hear that yet another released criminal has murdered yet another innocent. Every day we turn on the news to hear that another cowardly, suicidal, terrorist has killed more innocents. We all lament about how awful it is and how something should be done after having, ourselves, been the enablers for these criminals and terrorists.
Every so often, we are faced with the prospect of building new prisons. Everyone (except me, apparently) agrees that we ought to build those prisons, but none of us really wants to pay for them. We do pay for them, but we’re pissed about it. We treat these criminals very well and we’re pissed about that. And by very well, I mean much better than any of them treated their victims, whatever their individual crime was (with very few exceptions).
We, as a society, don’t like the idea of playing God, making decisions of life and death. What we choose to remain ignorant about is that we do it anyway, whether we like it and are aware of it or not. When we choose life for a violent criminal, we are choosing death for that criminal’s next victim. I believe it is time to take our heads out of the sand and take responsibility for the shape of our society.
In case you are wondering, yes, the fact that this is part one does mean that there will be at least a part two. This will deal with terrorism at the appropriate point.
Every day we turn on the news (some of us do, anyway) only to hear that yet another released criminal has murdered yet another innocent. Every day we turn on the news to hear that another cowardly, suicidal, terrorist has killed more innocents. We all lament about how awful it is and how something should be done after having, ourselves, been the enablers for these criminals and terrorists.
Every so often, we are faced with the prospect of building new prisons. Everyone (except me, apparently) agrees that we ought to build those prisons, but none of us really wants to pay for them. We do pay for them, but we’re pissed about it. We treat these criminals very well and we’re pissed about that. And by very well, I mean much better than any of them treated their victims, whatever their individual crime was (with very few exceptions).
We, as a society, don’t like the idea of playing God, making decisions of life and death. What we choose to remain ignorant about is that we do it anyway, whether we like it and are aware of it or not. When we choose life for a violent criminal, we are choosing death for that criminal’s next victim. I believe it is time to take our heads out of the sand and take responsibility for the shape of our society.
In case you are wondering, yes, the fact that this is part one does mean that there will be at least a part two. This will deal with terrorism at the appropriate point.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Al Gore Really Cares – NOT!
I got home from work tonight to see a story about Al Gore III, son of our former Vice-President, the man who until recently claimed he was President despite the fact that the rules for winning and losing had been clearly laid out for over 200 years, and the man shoving guilt about global warming down our throats in the face of mounting evidence that we need not feel guilty. He was arrested again for reckless activity involving drugs and cars – the kind of things that usually ends with an innocent here at the bottom being dead.
So what did this stalwart public servant of many decades have to say about it? He is just glad that his son was safe. In the face of his son’s stupid, reckless actions, I heard nothing at all about being glad that the rest of us were safe.
Why? Because, as stated in the purpose for this blog, the vast majority of those at the top don’t really care about those of us at the bottom. If they did, we would be able to see it in their actions, without them constantly telling us that they care and trying to prove it by solving fictitious problems and claiming to have invented the internet.
Please go away, Mr. Gore and take care of your own problems.
So what did this stalwart public servant of many decades have to say about it? He is just glad that his son was safe. In the face of his son’s stupid, reckless actions, I heard nothing at all about being glad that the rest of us were safe.
Why? Because, as stated in the purpose for this blog, the vast majority of those at the top don’t really care about those of us at the bottom. If they did, we would be able to see it in their actions, without them constantly telling us that they care and trying to prove it by solving fictitious problems and claiming to have invented the internet.
Please go away, Mr. Gore and take care of your own problems.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Gordon Brown’s Reaction to Terror
Gordon Brown took office as Great Britain’s Prime Minister replacing Tony Blair on June 29, 2007. On the same day, two related terrorist plots were foiled – in part by the idiot terrorists themselves. The next day, they tried it again in Glasgow. With doctors like this roaming the face of the earth, it’s a wonder malpractice insurance is as low as it is. Gordon Brown has received accolades for the way he has handled the situation.
Personally, I don’t know a whole lot about Brown except that he stands in stark contrast in style to Blair and appears to be a friend of the United States as well. He is being roundly cheered for his response, which has essentially been to tell Brits to carry on.
OK. I get it, but I would have found him more likeable and more credible if I had heard him give Blair some credit for the phenomenal investigation that MI5, presumably in cooperation with other intelligence agencies around the world, has conducted in the past few days. Brown didn’t put together a team in a few hours capable of conducting a James Bond style operation reaching around the world to capture terrorists as far away as Australia-heading-for Pakistan within a few days. No, that was put in place by his predecessor during the previous 10 years.
It’s all well and good that Gordon Brown be the leader, the strong leader that learns from the mistakes of the past – as we all should. But Tony Blair deserves better than to be thrown out like yesterday’s garbage, and he will get better treatment than that here. Those are HIS fingerprints you see around the throats of these terrorists.
Thank you, Prime Minister Blair for that and so much more. May your successor be as successful and memorable – flamboyant and charismatic or not. We will see and assess Browns mettle during their prosecution.
Personally, I don’t know a whole lot about Brown except that he stands in stark contrast in style to Blair and appears to be a friend of the United States as well. He is being roundly cheered for his response, which has essentially been to tell Brits to carry on.
OK. I get it, but I would have found him more likeable and more credible if I had heard him give Blair some credit for the phenomenal investigation that MI5, presumably in cooperation with other intelligence agencies around the world, has conducted in the past few days. Brown didn’t put together a team in a few hours capable of conducting a James Bond style operation reaching around the world to capture terrorists as far away as Australia-heading-for Pakistan within a few days. No, that was put in place by his predecessor during the previous 10 years.
It’s all well and good that Gordon Brown be the leader, the strong leader that learns from the mistakes of the past – as we all should. But Tony Blair deserves better than to be thrown out like yesterday’s garbage, and he will get better treatment than that here. Those are HIS fingerprints you see around the throats of these terrorists.
Thank you, Prime Minister Blair for that and so much more. May your successor be as successful and memorable – flamboyant and charismatic or not. We will see and assess Browns mettle during their prosecution.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Immigration Reform – Deformed (Mexican Food)
The immigration bill was killed; now it’s alive again. It apparently has more lives than a cat. I am being called a racist on the news shows (even on Fox News by Geraldo) because I believe the laws of the land ought to be enforced. You know, the ones on the books making invasion of the United Stated illegal since 1986, signed by Reagan and enforced by no one since then.
So for those of you who may agree with me, here is the next argument intended to assault your integrity as soon as the new version of this idiot bill sees resistance. I’m preparing you for it now, so don’t say you weren’t warned. ”Oh, you don’t mind eating Mexican food, but having a few Mexicans around to cook it for you is objectionable, you racist.”
Here is the correct response. “No you [add expletive if desired. You’ve earned the right at this point] moron. I love legal Mexican food, preferably cooked by legal Americans of Mexican descent. And by the way - that Mexican-American crap, or any other hyphenated American. I don’t want them cooking my food either. I want Americans in America, who think of themselves as Americans - not any kind of hyphenated American, and if I had my way, anybody who thinks of themselves as a hyphenated American would be deported to wherever they used to hyphenate, since that is obviously where they would prefer to be. Anything else?”
No, they won’t learn a thing. But the important thing is they will not have tricked you into feeling guilt you had no business feeling.
Meanwhile, Bush and the Congress are continuing to ignore the will of the people – that they do their jobs in enforcing current laws (like the 1986 immigration law and the 2006 fence authorization) rather than create a third law to ignore. These are the activities that serve as the principal argument for term limits. Can’t we extend them to include the Congress?
Maybe Cheney becoming a fourth branch of government isn’t such a bad idea. Who in their right mind would want to be associated with what we have in there right now. That’s all I can stand to write right now as my stomach is bothering me, and believe me, it’s not the excellent Mexican food I had for lunch.
So for those of you who may agree with me, here is the next argument intended to assault your integrity as soon as the new version of this idiot bill sees resistance. I’m preparing you for it now, so don’t say you weren’t warned. ”Oh, you don’t mind eating Mexican food, but having a few Mexicans around to cook it for you is objectionable, you racist.”
Here is the correct response. “No you [add expletive if desired. You’ve earned the right at this point] moron. I love legal Mexican food, preferably cooked by legal Americans of Mexican descent. And by the way - that Mexican-American crap, or any other hyphenated American. I don’t want them cooking my food either. I want Americans in America, who think of themselves as Americans - not any kind of hyphenated American, and if I had my way, anybody who thinks of themselves as a hyphenated American would be deported to wherever they used to hyphenate, since that is obviously where they would prefer to be. Anything else?”
No, they won’t learn a thing. But the important thing is they will not have tricked you into feeling guilt you had no business feeling.
Meanwhile, Bush and the Congress are continuing to ignore the will of the people – that they do their jobs in enforcing current laws (like the 1986 immigration law and the 2006 fence authorization) rather than create a third law to ignore. These are the activities that serve as the principal argument for term limits. Can’t we extend them to include the Congress?
Maybe Cheney becoming a fourth branch of government isn’t such a bad idea. Who in their right mind would want to be associated with what we have in there right now. That’s all I can stand to write right now as my stomach is bothering me, and believe me, it’s not the excellent Mexican food I had for lunch.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Democratic Leadership – Enabling Hamas Victory
The first tangible results of the soaring U.S. popularity triggered by the leadership of the Democratic Party’s “surrender-to-anyone” policy and George W. Bush’s “placate-the-idiots-in-Congress” policy are in. Iran and Hamas have been emboldened, and now they control the Gaza strip. For the first time since 9/11, the terrorists are winning. Way to turn the tide of the war, Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi, and President Bush. Was this the change America voted for in 2006? Happy Flag Day.
When Israel pulled out of Gaza 3 years ago, it was in its own interest, declaring that the area was indefensible. Israel was right, apparently. The result will be a clarification of Palestine’s actual position, a single voice with a single objective – the destruction of Israel.
This will, in turn, lead to an escalation of Palestinian attacks on Israel. Israel will defend itself, be condemned by the both the world and the Democrats in Congress for trying to stay alive, and the world will be sucked in. The bad guys will be gleeful as they send their pawns to inglorious death, and the good guys will be kicking, screaming, wringing their hands, and wasting valuable time searching their souls and consciences.
Israel’s decision was based on a number of assumptions, the most important of which was continued and unwavering U.S. support. Since we are in the process of figuring out how to renege on our commitment to the citizens of Iraq, can our commitment to Israel be far behind. Not to renege would violate the Congressional surrender policy. Since they have now made war inevitable, they had better start formulating their surrender strategy now unless they want to look something other than stupid for a change.
Enter Joe Lieberman, the only person in the federal government talking sense and speaking his conscience. Take out Iranian nukes, he suggests, before they exist. For most Democrats in Congress and virtually all liberals, this ought to make perfect sense. It is nothing more than political abortion – kill the nukes in the womb, so to speak. It is a second chance to relive 1938 all over again. President Bush had better re-grow some cojones (At least he had some at one time, unlike Congress.), and the world had better start listening to the only member of Congress making sense, working for America, and speaking his conscience.
Side note on Lieberman: I hereby officially forgive Joe Lieberman for his “not guilty” vote on Clinton’s impeachment, even though I still disagree with it.
When Israel pulled out of Gaza 3 years ago, it was in its own interest, declaring that the area was indefensible. Israel was right, apparently. The result will be a clarification of Palestine’s actual position, a single voice with a single objective – the destruction of Israel.
This will, in turn, lead to an escalation of Palestinian attacks on Israel. Israel will defend itself, be condemned by the both the world and the Democrats in Congress for trying to stay alive, and the world will be sucked in. The bad guys will be gleeful as they send their pawns to inglorious death, and the good guys will be kicking, screaming, wringing their hands, and wasting valuable time searching their souls and consciences.
Israel’s decision was based on a number of assumptions, the most important of which was continued and unwavering U.S. support. Since we are in the process of figuring out how to renege on our commitment to the citizens of Iraq, can our commitment to Israel be far behind. Not to renege would violate the Congressional surrender policy. Since they have now made war inevitable, they had better start formulating their surrender strategy now unless they want to look something other than stupid for a change.
Enter Joe Lieberman, the only person in the federal government talking sense and speaking his conscience. Take out Iranian nukes, he suggests, before they exist. For most Democrats in Congress and virtually all liberals, this ought to make perfect sense. It is nothing more than political abortion – kill the nukes in the womb, so to speak. It is a second chance to relive 1938 all over again. President Bush had better re-grow some cojones (At least he had some at one time, unlike Congress.), and the world had better start listening to the only member of Congress making sense, working for America, and speaking his conscience.
Side note on Lieberman: I hereby officially forgive Joe Lieberman for his “not guilty” vote on Clinton’s impeachment, even though I still disagree with it.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Immigration Reform - Deformed
The proposed immigration bill being sold to us by the Bush administration and the leadership in the U.S. Congress is the equivalent of the Iraq surrender bill. This is the Mexico surrender bill born of the same mindset, the same misguided expediency, and with the same consequences.
The irresponsibility of the Bush administration and all the prior administrations in not enforcing the laws currently in place is astounding. I, along with many others, believe that this has been the result of pandering to the Hispanic vote. It succeeded. If my belief is correct, President Bush, will have the blood of Americans on his hands when the WMDs that may have crossed the border under his watch are used on us. That, sadly, will be his legacy, just as intern sex and 9/11 are Clinton’s legacy.
Legacy calculation:
- War in Afghanistan +10
- War in Iraq +15
- Best economy ever +5
- Supreme Court Appointments +7
- 10,000 people die from WMDs that crossed our borders with the blessing of the U.S. Government -2,000,000
- Destruction of the Republican party -4,000
Incidentally, other administrations share the legacy hits on the WMDs on a sliding scale, with those to whom the highest urgency should have been most apparent taking the biggest hits as follows:
- Bush 43 -2,000,000
- Clinton -1,500,000
- Bush 41 -500,000
- Reagan -100,000
- Carter -4,000,000 (for nurturing terrorism)
The Congress, complacent in this, will have an equally disgraceful legacy as the enablers of the no-border policy and the obstructionists of all that truly protects us.
But I digress.
How is the immigration bill surrender? It is the attitude that you cannot deport 12,000,000 law-breaking, illegal aliens. It is true that you can’t if you don’t try. John McCain, in defending this crappy bill in typical government fashion, has said that deporting 12,000,000 people would overwhelm the legal system. Oh, so it IS possible, then Senator?
What does private industry do when faced with a sudden, temporary, overwhelming, necessary project? It quickly creates a large, temporary organization where everyone understands that there is a defined end to the project and after which their employment will end. It streamlines the process by which it achieves the necessary production (like military tribunals to deal with the invading force) and does not allow it to overwhelm the remainder of its organization. Mitt Romney knows how to do it. He did it in business, he did it in the Olympics, and he just can’t wait to do it in Washington – his words on his commercials. Well Governor, can/will you do it?
In addition, we are currently all up in arms about the irresponsibility of a tuberculosis patient, Andrew Speaker, who endangered hundreds of people by defying a CDC no-fly order repeatedly. Many believe, as I do, that he should be in jail. Not one of us believes his plea of ignorance or his sincerity in apologizing after the fact and after being apprehended. It doesn’t help that he is a lawyer either. His activity could well be dwarfed by what could be coming across the border while we turn our heads the other way.
What does the CDC know about the dangers crossing our borders? How many Americans have already been killed by illegal aliens either while committing crimes or driving with or without a license?
I take back my previous statement about Bush having American blood on his hand if WMDs are used. He and the Congress already have blood on their hands – innocent blood. The only question is “How much more blood do you really want on your hands?” Don’t tell me. Show me – now.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Honoring the Fallen on Memorial Day
We honor by our actions, not our words. Through our actions we honor those or dishonor those who made us, those who taught us, those who invested in us, those who shaped us.
As we make the politically correct noises on this Memorial day, we ask ourselves why the fallen fell, why they were willing to fall, how we feel about why they fell, and what we are willing to do to keep their dreams alive. Are their dreams our dreams?
Every soldier who has taken up arms has known all too well that their death was part of the equation. They knew it in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War (1991), and the Iraq War (2003). They knew it equally well during the many preparatory operations, other battles and skirmishes, such as the various rebellions, interventions, and unanswered attacks such as the attack on the USS Cole. Those of us who were not asked to pay the ultimate price knew it and honor our comrades by remembering it always.
They served in all cases to preserve and strengthen the United States. We honor them when we do everything we can to continue that goal, assuming we believe it a worthy one. I believe it to be.
I believe that all who fight to achieve these goals (soldiers, politicians, and citizens) honor them by acting. I believe that all who don’t fight to achieve these goals (soldiers who refuse to fight, politicians who surrender and signal weakness to the enemy, newspapers who report state secrets unauthorized on their front pages, citizens who remain uninformed, refuse to vote, and demean the leaders who have stepped up in the hour of America’s – and, by extension, our – need) dishonor them.
Remember that on your Memorial Day picnic on your day off and reflect whether it is just another paid holiday or something more meaningful. Honor them as you would your parents, your favorite teachers, your God. Honor them by doing those things that they valued, taught, and sacrificed for. And not just on Memorial Day – from this moment on.
As we make the politically correct noises on this Memorial day, we ask ourselves why the fallen fell, why they were willing to fall, how we feel about why they fell, and what we are willing to do to keep their dreams alive. Are their dreams our dreams?
Every soldier who has taken up arms has known all too well that their death was part of the equation. They knew it in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War (1991), and the Iraq War (2003). They knew it equally well during the many preparatory operations, other battles and skirmishes, such as the various rebellions, interventions, and unanswered attacks such as the attack on the USS Cole. Those of us who were not asked to pay the ultimate price knew it and honor our comrades by remembering it always.
They served in all cases to preserve and strengthen the United States. We honor them when we do everything we can to continue that goal, assuming we believe it a worthy one. I believe it to be.
I believe that all who fight to achieve these goals (soldiers, politicians, and citizens) honor them by acting. I believe that all who don’t fight to achieve these goals (soldiers who refuse to fight, politicians who surrender and signal weakness to the enemy, newspapers who report state secrets unauthorized on their front pages, citizens who remain uninformed, refuse to vote, and demean the leaders who have stepped up in the hour of America’s – and, by extension, our – need) dishonor them.
Remember that on your Memorial Day picnic on your day off and reflect whether it is just another paid holiday or something more meaningful. Honor them as you would your parents, your favorite teachers, your God. Honor them by doing those things that they valued, taught, and sacrificed for. And not just on Memorial Day – from this moment on.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Suicide Bombings Are Apparently OK Now?
I guess all is right with the world then, isn’t it? According to the Pew Research Center poll of 1,050 young Muslim adults in the United States, 26% said that suicide bombings are an acceptable tactic to defend their religion.
When you break that number down, 2% say that it can be justified often, 13% say sometimes, and 11% say rarely. That 2% is still a lot of potential suicide bombers, and that is cause for concern.
This same poll shows 5% expressing favorable views of Al Qaeda with about 25% abstaining. Why abstain? There is only one reason that I know of, and that is fear of the 5% becoming 30%, which I now must assume to be the real number. Additionally, only 40% believed Arab men carried out the attacks of 9/11/2001, despite all the evidence to the contrary. The implication is that we need to resume strip-searching little old lady grandmother types. Yeah, right!
This group also favors the Democratic Party by six to one. What does that tell us? Let’s see. 86% of a group deluding itself about the worst attack ever by foreigners on American soil and has a 30% favorable view of Al Qaeda favors Democrats. That tells me that the Democrats are perceived as BFFs (Best Friends Forever) of Al Qaeda by the Muslim community. I agree with that, incidentally, and I don’t come to that conclusion lightly or based only on the Pew Survey.
Recall the interview of left-wing producer Michael Moore by libertarian Bill O’Reilly. During that interview, Moore at one point asked O’Reilly if he would sacrifice his child to go die in Iraq. Ignore for the moment the incredible irrelevance of the question (since the fate of O’Reilly’s child is in the child’s hands – not O’Reilly’s) and focus on the implication. The tactic is one common among anti-war interviewees. Could that indicate a dearth of actual logic? Let me save you the trouble; the answer is yes.
The trap is to fall for an irrelevant premise, another indication of just how stupid we here at the bottom are perceived by the left-wing in America. Say “No” and you are a hypocrite. Say “Yes” and you are a hateful, unloving parent, but at least you have a conviction and may be respected for it. The 26% of the Muslim community as represented in the Pew poll has said yes to their Iraq-equivalent question, and are therefore, by implication, worthy of respect from the left wing. What does that make the left wing? In my view, it makes the left wing Al Qaeda’s BFF.
Other indications are there as well, ranging from the retreat from fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, to protests that blame America for 9/11.
There is one more troublesome point about the Pew poll. It does not define what constitutes an attack on Islam. I think we can safely assume that Osama bin Laden would be among that 26% suicide bombing enthusiast number. In his view, not being what most of us consider to be radical Muslim fascist would constitute an attack on Islam. What is the definition for this 26% - make that about 273 potential suicide bombers? That’s a lot of potential innocents’ death, and it’s just a small statistical sample. And as for that 2% - about 21 people – look out. That’s more than it took to kill 3,000 innocents in the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11.
Still, let’s all join the lunatic conspiracy theorists and the Muslim community that denies that 9/11 was executed by Arab men despite the crowing by the Arab men who executed it. And while we’re at it, we had better leave our borders open for a few more decades and step up our strip searches of grandmas before it’s too late.
When you break that number down, 2% say that it can be justified often, 13% say sometimes, and 11% say rarely. That 2% is still a lot of potential suicide bombers, and that is cause for concern.
This same poll shows 5% expressing favorable views of Al Qaeda with about 25% abstaining. Why abstain? There is only one reason that I know of, and that is fear of the 5% becoming 30%, which I now must assume to be the real number. Additionally, only 40% believed Arab men carried out the attacks of 9/11/2001, despite all the evidence to the contrary. The implication is that we need to resume strip-searching little old lady grandmother types. Yeah, right!
This group also favors the Democratic Party by six to one. What does that tell us? Let’s see. 86% of a group deluding itself about the worst attack ever by foreigners on American soil and has a 30% favorable view of Al Qaeda favors Democrats. That tells me that the Democrats are perceived as BFFs (Best Friends Forever) of Al Qaeda by the Muslim community. I agree with that, incidentally, and I don’t come to that conclusion lightly or based only on the Pew Survey.
Recall the interview of left-wing producer Michael Moore by libertarian Bill O’Reilly. During that interview, Moore at one point asked O’Reilly if he would sacrifice his child to go die in Iraq. Ignore for the moment the incredible irrelevance of the question (since the fate of O’Reilly’s child is in the child’s hands – not O’Reilly’s) and focus on the implication. The tactic is one common among anti-war interviewees. Could that indicate a dearth of actual logic? Let me save you the trouble; the answer is yes.
The trap is to fall for an irrelevant premise, another indication of just how stupid we here at the bottom are perceived by the left-wing in America. Say “No” and you are a hypocrite. Say “Yes” and you are a hateful, unloving parent, but at least you have a conviction and may be respected for it. The 26% of the Muslim community as represented in the Pew poll has said yes to their Iraq-equivalent question, and are therefore, by implication, worthy of respect from the left wing. What does that make the left wing? In my view, it makes the left wing Al Qaeda’s BFF.
Other indications are there as well, ranging from the retreat from fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, to protests that blame America for 9/11.
There is one more troublesome point about the Pew poll. It does not define what constitutes an attack on Islam. I think we can safely assume that Osama bin Laden would be among that 26% suicide bombing enthusiast number. In his view, not being what most of us consider to be radical Muslim fascist would constitute an attack on Islam. What is the definition for this 26% - make that about 273 potential suicide bombers? That’s a lot of potential innocents’ death, and it’s just a small statistical sample. And as for that 2% - about 21 people – look out. That’s more than it took to kill 3,000 innocents in the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon on 9/11.
Still, let’s all join the lunatic conspiracy theorists and the Muslim community that denies that 9/11 was executed by Arab men despite the crowing by the Arab men who executed it. And while we’re at it, we had better leave our borders open for a few more decades and step up our strip searches of grandmas before it’s too late.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
What’s Wrong with Iraq Again?
Call me stupid if you must and think you are able to defend it, but what is the problem with the Iraq war again? As far as I can see, Iraq is THE right war at THE right place and THE right time. All the criticisms I hear daily are hollow, oft-repeated lies and/or irrelevancies that gain traction with weak politicians incapable of fighting for principle any more and people stuck in the sixties. Live in the now, people.
Let’s review the criticisms one by one.
- Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction: So what? That wasn’t the basis for the attack. The basis for attacking was that the dictator who lost the first Gulf War that he started 12 years earlier ignored the terms of his surrender. Prior to being invaded, he led us, and the world, to believe that he would retaliate with WMDs in hopes of preventing the enforcement of 17 U.N. resolutions. Anyway, we know he had WMDs because he used them on the Kurds in the 1980s. Verdict: criticism is an irrelevant lie.
- Saddam was not in league with Al Qaeda: Again, so what? That wasn’t the basis for the attack either. Besides, who says that Al Qaeda is the only enemy we should attack? In any case, they follow the same philosophy of ruling the world through terror. It’s a little like the triple-Axis of WWII where if you pay too much attention to Germany, Japan would come after you. Yeah, we should have waited for that to happen (heavy sarcasm). Verdict – the criticism is irrelevant, but given past human history, would probably have become a lie given a few more years.
- We should be going after Al Qaeda; they are the ones who attacked us: You might want to wake up and see that Al Qaeda is who we are fighting in Iraq. Oh sure, there is the Iranian influence aiding and abetting Al Qaeda, but without Al Qaeda, the Iranian government is nothing. Verdict – the criticism is a denial of what we are already doing – a flat-out lie.
- Soldiers are dying in Iraq: That’s right. Soldiers die in wars. The only way to prevent soldiers from dieing in a war is to surrender. The real issue is whether the current engagement and risk of lost treasure is worth the cause. The cause is the survival of civilization since there is no civilization on earth that does not violate Islamic law as interpreted by Al Qaeda. Verdict – True, but irrelevant, fact based on all the other factors on this page and elsewhere.
- We are less safe now than on 9/11/2001 – 3,000 Americans died on 9/11/2001; 0 since then to-date. Verdict: A lie told to you by people who believe you are a retarded, cool-aid drinker. Don’t be.
- The world is less safe now than on 9/11/2001 – Since 9/11/2001 there have been a number of attacks around the globe by terrorists in Madrid, London, and elsewhere. Most of the socialist governments in Europe have lacked the balls to deal with internal threats and many have paid the price. If they haven’t had an attack yet, they will. Russia has seen the terrorist threat to the United States as an opportunity to attempt to revive the old Soviet Union, by making our task more difficult, blocking efforts at every turn. Vladimir Putin, like all socialists, is just not smart enough to realize that he also is a target of Al Qaeda. Verdict: This one is true, but not because of the Iraq war.
- World opinion is against us – Who gives a rat’s ass? Do we have the moral courage to stand up for what is right and, in the process, our own survival or not? The United States is the greatest country the world has ever known, and it did not get to be that way by following world opinion? We ought to be ignoring the U.N. like Saddam did. We, except for the liberal Democrat leadership, are unlikely to attack ourselves over U.N. resolutions, and nobody else has the resources or the guts. Verdict: irrelevant.
- If we stopped the aggression in Iraq, everything would be OK: Yeah, because that worked so well in the days leading up to 9/11/2001 (heavy sarcasm). Incidentally, what is going on in Iraq is not aggression; it is the enforcement of 17 UN resolutions. If you like the U.N., you should be happy that someone is giving it teeth. If you don’t, then let me hear you argue for U.N. dissolution. Verdict: doesn’t deserve a response, but here is one anyway. Try not to criticize while on hallucinogenic drugs from now on.
So I ask again, what is the problem with the Iraq war? It is none of the above for sure. The only real problem is that the Iraqi people have not yet won it. And if WE surrender, THEY never will win it and we all lose.
Wake up and defend your world while you still have one to defend.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
The Iraqi Parliamentary Vacation
So the Iraqi Parliament wants to take a vacation. From what, exactly are they taking this vacation? I’ve seen some blogs implying that they have been on vacation for the past few years. I have seen others calling this a “2-month, Bush-style” vacation. Well you all might just want to take a step back and grow up for a few minutes.
Let’s talk about Bush first. It doesn’t matter how long his “vacations” are. They aren’t vacations as we at the bottom know them. They are work-at-home days. The press camps out on his lawn, not far from where Cindy Sheehan protests, while his staff and cabinet prepare him for a press conference every few days. If any of you out there do any less that that on YOUR vacation (and you and I both know you do a lot less) then please just shut up about Bush’s vacations. However, Bush is not entirely without fault in the Iraq vacation matter, as we will see shortly.
As we try to Americanize the Iraqi government, what is the example the U.S. Congress provides? It took a 2-week Easter vacation. The Democrat-led Congress left town after half-passing a bad surrender bill that everyone in the world knew had no chance at all of being signed into law. Anyone care to guess who the first people were to whine about the Iraqi Parliament following suit? Yup. It was leaders of the Democrat-led Congress. Score one more for the U.S. Congress.
Now back to Bush. As I wrote in my 3/31/07 article “Congress Doesn't Even Disgrace Itself Well” the President could have called an emergency session of Congress to get this urgent work done, thus depriving Nancy Pelosi of her Syrian vacation. He didn’t. His de-facto support of the Congress’ disgraceful vacation further sent the message to Iraq that this is an OK thing to do.
I would be curious to know when the founding fathers of the United States went on vacation. I doubt that there were many during the revolutionary war and was unable to find any, although I am not enough of a scholar to say definitively that there were none. If anyone knows, please share.
Perhaps the poetic justice on the subject of an Iraqi Parliamentary vacation is found in the following question(s) to Parliament members. Where will you go on vacation? Syria (You might want to get some tips from Nancy Pelosi)? Iran (I think Vladimir Putin might have some info you could use.)? Israel (You might get killed by your fellow mosque-goers.)? Please let us know where you went and how that worked out for you, especially if you were able to make it back alive.
Let’s talk about Bush first. It doesn’t matter how long his “vacations” are. They aren’t vacations as we at the bottom know them. They are work-at-home days. The press camps out on his lawn, not far from where Cindy Sheehan protests, while his staff and cabinet prepare him for a press conference every few days. If any of you out there do any less that that on YOUR vacation (and you and I both know you do a lot less) then please just shut up about Bush’s vacations. However, Bush is not entirely without fault in the Iraq vacation matter, as we will see shortly.
As we try to Americanize the Iraqi government, what is the example the U.S. Congress provides? It took a 2-week Easter vacation. The Democrat-led Congress left town after half-passing a bad surrender bill that everyone in the world knew had no chance at all of being signed into law. Anyone care to guess who the first people were to whine about the Iraqi Parliament following suit? Yup. It was leaders of the Democrat-led Congress. Score one more for the U.S. Congress.
Now back to Bush. As I wrote in my 3/31/07 article “Congress Doesn't Even Disgrace Itself Well” the President could have called an emergency session of Congress to get this urgent work done, thus depriving Nancy Pelosi of her Syrian vacation. He didn’t. His de-facto support of the Congress’ disgraceful vacation further sent the message to Iraq that this is an OK thing to do.
I would be curious to know when the founding fathers of the United States went on vacation. I doubt that there were many during the revolutionary war and was unable to find any, although I am not enough of a scholar to say definitively that there were none. If anyone knows, please share.
Perhaps the poetic justice on the subject of an Iraqi Parliamentary vacation is found in the following question(s) to Parliament members. Where will you go on vacation? Syria (You might want to get some tips from Nancy Pelosi)? Iran (I think Vladimir Putin might have some info you could use.)? Israel (You might get killed by your fellow mosque-goers.)? Please let us know where you went and how that worked out for you, especially if you were able to make it back alive.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Why We Put Up with Hollywood
Americans are the most generous people in the world, despite what the decidedly anti-American Kofi Annan claimed in late 2006 in a particularly idiotic moment – even for him. There is good reason for Americans to be generous. We have been the most blessed in the world as far as material things are concerned, and the breathtaking vistas in many part of the United States cannot help but make the most ardent atheist wonder whether God dwells in their majesty (or at least has a vacation home there).
But the statistics on how much Americans give to charity is incomplete. By most standards, big government, pushed by bleeding heart liberals since the 1960s to give our tax dollars to the poor, has screwed this up as it does with everything that falls outside its three real jobs. It has also skewed the picture dramatically, by taking away some of the money we used to give to the charities we deemed most worthy, and giving to those that liberals deem most worthy.
So what does this have to do with Hollywood? Everything. Hollywood is filled (mostly) with liberal, high-income, entertainment industry types who most of us at the bottom recognize as having unique talent. Most of us also don’t believe that it’s really worth $20 million per movie. But we do pay the ticket and DVD prices that give them that money. So why?
There is a piece of the American psyche that sympathizes with the socialist principle of “from each according to their ability; to each according to their need.” It’s not a huge portion of the American psyche, but it is there. That portion is heavily represented by the entertainment industry.
We conservatives might get extremely irritated with the likes of Rosie and others from time to time, but it is hard to deny that there are many (including Rosie) who do good, noble, and spiritually uplifting work outside the political arena.
Their role in American society is to redistribute a portion of income. That’s what socialism does; it redistributes income. That is what people in Hollywood do. They earn large sums of money from people who can afford their services and redistribute it to those they deem worthy. It is, essentially, the socialist arm of our capitalist society.
Adam Smith’s invisible hand has guided the course of Capitalism in the United States for the 200+ years representing the greatest (and by greatest I mean the most successful and most far-reaching) economic and political experiment the world has ever known. The genius of the invisible hand continues to exert its influence in the charitable sector of our society as well as it reflects the American psyche in matters of money, whether we utilize that money to improve our lives through the enterprise that earns more money or use it to improve our lives through helping our neighbors.
The rants and raves of Rosie O’Donnell, Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, and on and on are part of the price we pay to run the socialist arm of American Society. We need to remember that when we observe them behaving in this fashion.
I desperately wish that I could formulate the same sort of cost/benefit analysis that would allow me to tolerate the bad behavior of liberals in Congress and the media. I can’t.
But the statistics on how much Americans give to charity is incomplete. By most standards, big government, pushed by bleeding heart liberals since the 1960s to give our tax dollars to the poor, has screwed this up as it does with everything that falls outside its three real jobs. It has also skewed the picture dramatically, by taking away some of the money we used to give to the charities we deemed most worthy, and giving to those that liberals deem most worthy.
So what does this have to do with Hollywood? Everything. Hollywood is filled (mostly) with liberal, high-income, entertainment industry types who most of us at the bottom recognize as having unique talent. Most of us also don’t believe that it’s really worth $20 million per movie. But we do pay the ticket and DVD prices that give them that money. So why?
There is a piece of the American psyche that sympathizes with the socialist principle of “from each according to their ability; to each according to their need.” It’s not a huge portion of the American psyche, but it is there. That portion is heavily represented by the entertainment industry.
We conservatives might get extremely irritated with the likes of Rosie and others from time to time, but it is hard to deny that there are many (including Rosie) who do good, noble, and spiritually uplifting work outside the political arena.
Their role in American society is to redistribute a portion of income. That’s what socialism does; it redistributes income. That is what people in Hollywood do. They earn large sums of money from people who can afford their services and redistribute it to those they deem worthy. It is, essentially, the socialist arm of our capitalist society.
Adam Smith’s invisible hand has guided the course of Capitalism in the United States for the 200+ years representing the greatest (and by greatest I mean the most successful and most far-reaching) economic and political experiment the world has ever known. The genius of the invisible hand continues to exert its influence in the charitable sector of our society as well as it reflects the American psyche in matters of money, whether we utilize that money to improve our lives through the enterprise that earns more money or use it to improve our lives through helping our neighbors.
The rants and raves of Rosie O’Donnell, Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, and on and on are part of the price we pay to run the socialist arm of American Society. We need to remember that when we observe them behaving in this fashion.
I desperately wish that I could formulate the same sort of cost/benefit analysis that would allow me to tolerate the bad behavior of liberals in Congress and the media. I can’t.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The Politically Correct Alphabet
It’s not going to be long now before we face a threat more threatening to civilization than global warming. We’re going to run out of alphabet due to political correctness. In the beginning, there was the “N-word” – OK. As we have “progressed” through the PC evolution, we have unspeakable words for most of our letters. We have a few particularly naughty letters for which we have multiple words, the most notorious of which is “C.” When someone refers to the “C” word, I sometimes think about it for a minute or two just for kicks and then guess which “C-word” they were referring to rather than waste even more of my life continuing a counterproductive mini-quest.
In the past few weeks we have, thanks to Don Imus and Al Sharpton, added a new wrinkle to the politically correct alphabet - another “N” word – “nappy”, another “H” word – “Ho”, and 2 “N” phrases “nappy-headed” and “nappy-headed ho.” I assume a word or phrase has been added whenever someone loses a job over the word or phrase.
So let’s see how much of the alphabet we have left for use. A, B, C, D, F, G, H, J, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, and T are taken. So far as I know we still have E, I, K, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z available. I can actually think of a word or two for some of those remaining letters, but they haven’t been mainstreamed by actual news stories, documented offenses, or firings yet, but they will – never fear.
Although, PC-ness has always been a pain in the A--, at its beginning, it had a noble purpose – to keep from unnecessarily and unfairly offending people. It has, of course, like all noble endeavors, been turned over to the lunatic fringe to take too far. How can you possibly take a noble endeavor too far?
For one thing, you can decide that you don’t want to offend the lunatic fringe, who will take over given the slightest opportunity. Let’s get one thing straight – the lunatic fringe deserves to be offended. Why? - Because they are lunatics. I really shouldn’t have needed to explain that. However, if that’s not enough of a reason, the nature of the lunatic fringe is to make absolutely certain that their interests are served – fully and to the exclusion of all others’ interests – much like radical Islamic terrorists. That will, by definition offend all moderates at some point and “PC” will become a “PITA”, and it has. It has also become a tool for hiding truth and logic as well as delaying or blocking the addressing of real issues – like a doctor who prescribes cough medicine for lung cancer.
For example, it is unacceptable to say the actual “N” word, but it is acceptable to say “the ‘N’ word.” It means the same thing, except that saying “the ‘N’ word” conveys the message that you yourself are offended by the actual “N” word, which is usually BS. So PC-ness has, in a very real sense, created a lie and forced you to tell it. You have not really addressed the issue, which should have been to accept and value people for their uniqueness, including those differences that are not under their control and don’t matter in anything other than a Darwinian evolutionary context. In many instances it has exacerbated the problem by delaying a real solution; problems not addressed, get worse.
For another, PC-ness assumes that people are less tolerant than they otherwise would be. When you lower expectations of tolerance, some people in every offend-able group will live down to your expectations as well as demanding that you lower your expectations even more. If you do, you will offend moderates who you will never, ever lower you expectation of tolerance for. If you don’t, you will offend those demanding that you do. Either way, “PC” will (and has) become a “PITA.”
So in closing, let me say that I JCHFS with my OL and HAB, and if you spend more than a microsecond trying to figure that one out you’re an F’ing Idiot, or should I say FI. Oops, there went another letter. We certainly don’t want to offend idiots.
Translation: I just came home from shopping with my old lady and had a blast. I’m pretty certain that will offend somebody, somewhere.
In the past few weeks we have, thanks to Don Imus and Al Sharpton, added a new wrinkle to the politically correct alphabet - another “N” word – “nappy”, another “H” word – “Ho”, and 2 “N” phrases “nappy-headed” and “nappy-headed ho.” I assume a word or phrase has been added whenever someone loses a job over the word or phrase.
So let’s see how much of the alphabet we have left for use. A, B, C, D, F, G, H, J, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, and T are taken. So far as I know we still have E, I, K, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z available. I can actually think of a word or two for some of those remaining letters, but they haven’t been mainstreamed by actual news stories, documented offenses, or firings yet, but they will – never fear.
Although, PC-ness has always been a pain in the A--, at its beginning, it had a noble purpose – to keep from unnecessarily and unfairly offending people. It has, of course, like all noble endeavors, been turned over to the lunatic fringe to take too far. How can you possibly take a noble endeavor too far?
For one thing, you can decide that you don’t want to offend the lunatic fringe, who will take over given the slightest opportunity. Let’s get one thing straight – the lunatic fringe deserves to be offended. Why? - Because they are lunatics. I really shouldn’t have needed to explain that. However, if that’s not enough of a reason, the nature of the lunatic fringe is to make absolutely certain that their interests are served – fully and to the exclusion of all others’ interests – much like radical Islamic terrorists. That will, by definition offend all moderates at some point and “PC” will become a “PITA”, and it has. It has also become a tool for hiding truth and logic as well as delaying or blocking the addressing of real issues – like a doctor who prescribes cough medicine for lung cancer.
For example, it is unacceptable to say the actual “N” word, but it is acceptable to say “the ‘N’ word.” It means the same thing, except that saying “the ‘N’ word” conveys the message that you yourself are offended by the actual “N” word, which is usually BS. So PC-ness has, in a very real sense, created a lie and forced you to tell it. You have not really addressed the issue, which should have been to accept and value people for their uniqueness, including those differences that are not under their control and don’t matter in anything other than a Darwinian evolutionary context. In many instances it has exacerbated the problem by delaying a real solution; problems not addressed, get worse.
For another, PC-ness assumes that people are less tolerant than they otherwise would be. When you lower expectations of tolerance, some people in every offend-able group will live down to your expectations as well as demanding that you lower your expectations even more. If you do, you will offend moderates who you will never, ever lower you expectation of tolerance for. If you don’t, you will offend those demanding that you do. Either way, “PC” will (and has) become a “PITA.”
So in closing, let me say that I JCHFS with my OL and HAB, and if you spend more than a microsecond trying to figure that one out you’re an F’ing Idiot, or should I say FI. Oops, there went another letter. We certainly don’t want to offend idiots.
Translation: I just came home from shopping with my old lady and had a blast. I’m pretty certain that will offend somebody, somewhere.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Virginia Tech Tragedy - Ready for Profiling Yet?
The first thing to do is to acknowledge the tragedy at Virginia Tech and to extend my best wishes and condolences to the families of the Virginia Tech students whose lives were senselessly cut short as they approached their prime and to those who, although they survive, may be physically scarred for life.
To those who survived, you often hear that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. This is where it really applies, and this didn’t kill you. Indications from the convocation on Tuesday are that it won’t kill Virginia Tech either. You have, unfortunately and through no fault of your own, been burdened with a glimpse of the experience of many in our military – the violent and sudden loss of friends, colleagues, and family. You didn’t deserve that burden, but from what I have seen, I am confident you will survive it and draw strength from it in the future.
Fully realizing that I might (unjustifiably in my mind) be accused of advancing a political agenda, I offer the following logic in the interest of lowering the odds of this type of tragedy, not only on an American campus, but anywhere else. I think that all reasonable people recognize that the killing of 33 innocents is a tragedy no matter where it happens.
The 24/7 news coverage at the time of this writing is concentrating on this very task, specifically a detailed profiling of the killer after the fact. The logical question to ask would be, “Wouldn’t it have been better to profile the killer-to-be prior to the mass murder?” This must not be merely an academic exercise, but, unfortunately, it is likely to be just that, ultimately.
The questions of why more couldn’t be done to prevent this will inevitably lead to calls for action. This will, in turn lead to procedures that will infringe on someone’s “rights.” The question will be whose, and by how much. The ACLU will, predictably, attempt to block any action just because of this. The net result, in the absence of elected officials standing up for a change, is likely to be a lot of air time wasted on a lesson not learned and, sadly, a further expansion of the trend of escalating violence we have seen over the decades.
It isn’t as though we have to look very hard to find these people. The flags were all up, just like the flags were up on the 9/11 hijackers. We just need to interpret the flags and act on them – like we didn’t with the 9/11 hijackers and like we didn’t with Cho.
Isn’t the profile of the sad loser, who closes his/her eyes to society’s benefits, blames society for it, and embraces hopelessness, the same profile that would constitute the ideal recruit for a terrorist suicide attack, and wouldn’t the result be the same. If you profile one, you are, by default, profiling the other.
Are we ready yet in America to deal with the practicalities of life and death in 2007? If not, how many more dead innocents will it take until we are ready? I’m ready now.
Profiling is the right thing to do. The first people on the list should be the copycat bomb scare idiots appearing in the wake of Virginia Tech right after they spend 10 years in a high-security federal prison. If they are capable of the threat, they are capable of the deed. Track and treat the disturbed personalities of potential mass killing just as we should be doing with the convicted sex offender.
To those who survived, you often hear that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. This is where it really applies, and this didn’t kill you. Indications from the convocation on Tuesday are that it won’t kill Virginia Tech either. You have, unfortunately and through no fault of your own, been burdened with a glimpse of the experience of many in our military – the violent and sudden loss of friends, colleagues, and family. You didn’t deserve that burden, but from what I have seen, I am confident you will survive it and draw strength from it in the future.
Fully realizing that I might (unjustifiably in my mind) be accused of advancing a political agenda, I offer the following logic in the interest of lowering the odds of this type of tragedy, not only on an American campus, but anywhere else. I think that all reasonable people recognize that the killing of 33 innocents is a tragedy no matter where it happens.
The 24/7 news coverage at the time of this writing is concentrating on this very task, specifically a detailed profiling of the killer after the fact. The logical question to ask would be, “Wouldn’t it have been better to profile the killer-to-be prior to the mass murder?” This must not be merely an academic exercise, but, unfortunately, it is likely to be just that, ultimately.
The questions of why more couldn’t be done to prevent this will inevitably lead to calls for action. This will, in turn lead to procedures that will infringe on someone’s “rights.” The question will be whose, and by how much. The ACLU will, predictably, attempt to block any action just because of this. The net result, in the absence of elected officials standing up for a change, is likely to be a lot of air time wasted on a lesson not learned and, sadly, a further expansion of the trend of escalating violence we have seen over the decades.
It isn’t as though we have to look very hard to find these people. The flags were all up, just like the flags were up on the 9/11 hijackers. We just need to interpret the flags and act on them – like we didn’t with the 9/11 hijackers and like we didn’t with Cho.
Isn’t the profile of the sad loser, who closes his/her eyes to society’s benefits, blames society for it, and embraces hopelessness, the same profile that would constitute the ideal recruit for a terrorist suicide attack, and wouldn’t the result be the same. If you profile one, you are, by default, profiling the other.
Are we ready yet in America to deal with the practicalities of life and death in 2007? If not, how many more dead innocents will it take until we are ready? I’m ready now.
Profiling is the right thing to do. The first people on the list should be the copycat bomb scare idiots appearing in the wake of Virginia Tech right after they spend 10 years in a high-security federal prison. If they are capable of the threat, they are capable of the deed. Track and treat the disturbed personalities of potential mass killing just as we should be doing with the convicted sex offender.
The buzz among military strategists today is that Cho has done the research for al-Qaida. It doesn’t help to blame the crazy guy and let it go at that. We need to stop the crazy guys from killing us and from helping the enemy, however unwittingly they are doing it.
Monday, April 16, 2007
White Men Can't Jump - or Apologize Correctly
Don Imus, for all his obnoxious, caustic, bad jokes, finally after decades on the air, has done us all a favor – four actually. First, he has exposed the racism and sexism running rampant among some of those purporting to be black leaders in this country. Not all, but some, those who have been around the longest and those who are the most vocal and, unfortunately, most likely to show up on TV and radio most often. Second, he has enabled the more reasonable leaders in the black community to emerge as we see them take issue with and attempt to repeal the Jackson-Sharpton Act. Third, he has forced a discussion of the hip-hop garbage culture. Fourth, he has caused a discussion of the culture of apology; ultimately, we will decide which U.S.A. we are – the United States of America or the Unending Stream of Apologies.
If you are a white male in America, there are a lot of people lined up, waiting for an excuse to jump all over you. Ultimately, you will screw up (and by screw up, I mean offend some member of the politically correct police somewhere), and will be punished under the Jackson-Sharpton Act. Am I going to defend Imus? Not a chance. Even by my standards, he made a stupid mistake. Especially since he knew that there are those out there just waiting to pounce on him. He apologized to the people he wronged. The Rutgers Women’s Basketball Team had the discussion they needed to convince themselves that it was a sincere apology, and then graciously accepted. They also got a little publicity in the process (good for them) and a couple appeared to have been coached to whine a little (scarred for life? Yeah, right). The black leadership in America, unaffected by the remark, refused to forgive, with or without punishment. Imus’ punishment is currently roughly equivalent to that of a child molester in Vermont. We could really use some serious priority setting here.
I am also not going to go through the litany of missteps that reveal the hypocrisy of Jackson and Sharpton – missteps for which they are neither expected nor required to apologize. However, if you are a white male in this country, you are required to be perfectly politically correct.
But I am going to express my disgust for the actions on Fox News of one Malik Shabazz of the “New Black Panther Party” who called Michelle Malkin a political whore, basically, because she has not allowed him to brainwash or bully her. I hope that, by his standard, there are a lot of us whores. Jackson and Sharpton are absent in their non-condemnation of Shabazz. Malkin, although one of the toughest individuals I have seen on the tube and perfectly capable of holding her own, is, after all, a woman of color and therefore should qualify for protection under the Jackson-Sharpton Act. The act has, conspicuously, not been invoked.
Shabazz also refused to apologize for pre-lynching the Duke Lacrosse players, but instead asserted that Mike Nifong botched the case. The implication is that Mike Nifong owes an apology to the stripper who falsely accused the Duke players. Hmmmmm – lynching without a trial – isn’t that one of the wrongs that slave owners and the Klan were accused of.
On the same show, Opio Sakoni blamed the founding fathers - George Washington, et al, for today’s murderous, degrading rap lyrics while failing to thank them for the their contribution to the 2005 academy award winner - “It’s Hard Out There for a Pimp.”
So here are the rules as I understand them from America’s longest-tenured, most vocal black “leadership.” This is what I refer to as the Jackson-Sharpton Act.
If you are not black, you must always apologize for something, even if it was George Washington’s fault (This is the Sakoni Amendment to the Jackson-Sharpton Act). Your apology may be accepted by the black people you offend, if they are not leaders, because they are regular people like you and me, capable of forgiveness. Your apology will never be accepted by black leaders, but you need to do it anyway and then jump through hoops for them personally, so you can express your disgust with slavery, which you are not qualified to speak about anyway. If you are not black and do something wrong to a white person, you must search for a black person to apologize to. If you can’t find one, you must apologize for that.
If you are a white male in America, there are a lot of people lined up, waiting for an excuse to jump all over you. Ultimately, you will screw up (and by screw up, I mean offend some member of the politically correct police somewhere), and will be punished under the Jackson-Sharpton Act. Am I going to defend Imus? Not a chance. Even by my standards, he made a stupid mistake. Especially since he knew that there are those out there just waiting to pounce on him. He apologized to the people he wronged. The Rutgers Women’s Basketball Team had the discussion they needed to convince themselves that it was a sincere apology, and then graciously accepted. They also got a little publicity in the process (good for them) and a couple appeared to have been coached to whine a little (scarred for life? Yeah, right). The black leadership in America, unaffected by the remark, refused to forgive, with or without punishment. Imus’ punishment is currently roughly equivalent to that of a child molester in Vermont. We could really use some serious priority setting here.
I am also not going to go through the litany of missteps that reveal the hypocrisy of Jackson and Sharpton – missteps for which they are neither expected nor required to apologize. However, if you are a white male in this country, you are required to be perfectly politically correct.
But I am going to express my disgust for the actions on Fox News of one Malik Shabazz of the “New Black Panther Party” who called Michelle Malkin a political whore, basically, because she has not allowed him to brainwash or bully her. I hope that, by his standard, there are a lot of us whores. Jackson and Sharpton are absent in their non-condemnation of Shabazz. Malkin, although one of the toughest individuals I have seen on the tube and perfectly capable of holding her own, is, after all, a woman of color and therefore should qualify for protection under the Jackson-Sharpton Act. The act has, conspicuously, not been invoked.
Shabazz also refused to apologize for pre-lynching the Duke Lacrosse players, but instead asserted that Mike Nifong botched the case. The implication is that Mike Nifong owes an apology to the stripper who falsely accused the Duke players. Hmmmmm – lynching without a trial – isn’t that one of the wrongs that slave owners and the Klan were accused of.
On the same show, Opio Sakoni blamed the founding fathers - George Washington, et al, for today’s murderous, degrading rap lyrics while failing to thank them for the their contribution to the 2005 academy award winner - “It’s Hard Out There for a Pimp.”
So here are the rules as I understand them from America’s longest-tenured, most vocal black “leadership.” This is what I refer to as the Jackson-Sharpton Act.
- If you are black, you can never do anything wrong unless you agree with a white person, and therefore are neither expected nor required to apologize for anything else - ever. Additionally, any non-black who claims that you have done something wrong is wrong and must apologize.
During the course of my career, I have been told that although I was qualified for promotional opportunities, I would never get them because I was the wrong color and/or the wrong gender. Not that big of a deal to me in the long run, but it did happen and continues to happen to people every day. So who are the slaves now?
I’m pretty sick of being told that I should be at the back of the bus; I’ve never sent anyone there, I’m not going there, and you shouldn’t go there either, whoever you are.
And that’s the view today from here at the bottom.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Pelosi?
You should be – whoever you are. If you’re not you should be seriously questioning what is wrong with you. If you can’t do that by yourself, then get help. Once you have completed this first step, you have a duty to ask yourself what is wrong with those who do not yet fear this woman as you do. So in the interest of providing you that help, assuming you need it, and of getting this country back to having a reasonable line of succession and having a reasonable Congress, let me help you with a few observations.
Nancy Pelosi is two heartbeats away from the Presidency of the United States. And one of those heartbeats, despite its strength of mind and character, grows increasingly fragile as time passes. You should now have a sense of constitutional urgency about the situation.
Nancy Pelosi recently visited Syria – a terrorist state and enemy of the U.S. – for what? She says she was bringing the Presidents message. Well, the President is a big boy and is capable of delivering his own message. Better yet, he has Condoleezza Rice, whose job it is to deliver the Presidents message and does it better than anyone else. Here is the message “We don’t talk to terrorists.” By going at all, she acted to rescind the message – not deliver it. We, here at the bottom, understand this message. Some at the top – like the Speaker of the House – apparently don’t. If she does, she is lying about it. Either way, she doesn’t belong in a position of power in our government. You should now have a picture of a confused, back-stabbing liar. Convinced yet?
OK, I’ll continue. She is now talking about visiting the terrorist government of Iran. Does she have a list of terrorists that she needs to contact? It would have helped if she had published that list during the campaign – more honest too. I am a little surprised that she hasn’t visited Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro yet, but we have time and Fidel hasn’t been all that well lately. You should now have a picture of a dishonest politician who did not reveal her real agenda during her campaign. Convinced yet?
No? OK. All this exists against the backdrop of refusing to pass a war-funding bill capable of being signed into law before her Middle-Eastern vacation to aid and comfort America’s enemies, which, of course could not be postponed for the purpose of passing decent legislation. Passing legislation? Yes, her job - the one that she doesn’t much care to be bothered with. You should now have a picture of a woman unable and/or unwilling to do her own job, but who is hell-bent on making sure she keeps others from doing theirs, thinking that will make her look good.
So why am I not as critical of Harry Reed in the Senate? I am; he is her partner in incompetence and publicly has supported her undermining of foreign policy at the expense of our troops and their mission. He has also pushed a similarly nonsensical bill through the Senate. But he’s not the one who is two heartbeats away from the Presidency.
Anyone who does not condemn her vacation activities is complacent in aiding and comforting the enemy, and is not worthy of any position of authority in the U.S. government. This especially applies to anyone of any party running for President of the U.S. Even if you don’t condemn her activities on ideological grounds, you should condemn them on constitutional grounds. This is not her job, and those Presidential candidates who refuse to speak up are saying that it’s OK for the Congress to have its own separate, contradictory foreign policy when they become President (Apparently, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are all OK with that.). Even if you don’t condemn her actions on a constitutional basis, you should at least be suspicious of someone who justifies her anti-American activities with a vacant, robotic stare except when she declares that “…there’s a new congress in town…” Who is the cowboy now?
You should now have a sense of constitutional urgency that a lying politician, unable and/or unwilling to do her own job, interfering with those who want to do theirs, acting like the cowboy Al Gore once accused President Bush of being, and providing aid and comfort to our enemies, is just two heartbeats away from becoming the leader of the free world. Suddenly, the freedom of the good guys appears in greater jeopardy while the freedom of the bad guys looks pretty solid.
Remove Nancy Pelosi!
Responsible politicians will work for Nancy Pelosi’s removal from her position. Republicans should work to convince their counterparts on the other side of the isle. Democrats should realize that she doesn’t represent mainstream Democrats – just the crackpots who voted to remove the U.S. military from contact with schools in San Francisco. If Nancy Pelosi became President, where would the U.S. military be removed from next? Would there be a U.S. military at all? Probably not. The U.S. military was weakened substantially under Clinton, and he wasn’t nearly as radical as Pelosi.
This is dangerous for the top, the bottom, and everyone in-between.
Nancy Pelosi is two heartbeats away from the Presidency of the United States. And one of those heartbeats, despite its strength of mind and character, grows increasingly fragile as time passes. You should now have a sense of constitutional urgency about the situation.
Nancy Pelosi recently visited Syria – a terrorist state and enemy of the U.S. – for what? She says she was bringing the Presidents message. Well, the President is a big boy and is capable of delivering his own message. Better yet, he has Condoleezza Rice, whose job it is to deliver the Presidents message and does it better than anyone else. Here is the message “We don’t talk to terrorists.” By going at all, she acted to rescind the message – not deliver it. We, here at the bottom, understand this message. Some at the top – like the Speaker of the House – apparently don’t. If she does, she is lying about it. Either way, she doesn’t belong in a position of power in our government. You should now have a picture of a confused, back-stabbing liar. Convinced yet?
OK, I’ll continue. She is now talking about visiting the terrorist government of Iran. Does she have a list of terrorists that she needs to contact? It would have helped if she had published that list during the campaign – more honest too. I am a little surprised that she hasn’t visited Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro yet, but we have time and Fidel hasn’t been all that well lately. You should now have a picture of a dishonest politician who did not reveal her real agenda during her campaign. Convinced yet?
No? OK. All this exists against the backdrop of refusing to pass a war-funding bill capable of being signed into law before her Middle-Eastern vacation to aid and comfort America’s enemies, which, of course could not be postponed for the purpose of passing decent legislation. Passing legislation? Yes, her job - the one that she doesn’t much care to be bothered with. You should now have a picture of a woman unable and/or unwilling to do her own job, but who is hell-bent on making sure she keeps others from doing theirs, thinking that will make her look good.
So why am I not as critical of Harry Reed in the Senate? I am; he is her partner in incompetence and publicly has supported her undermining of foreign policy at the expense of our troops and their mission. He has also pushed a similarly nonsensical bill through the Senate. But he’s not the one who is two heartbeats away from the Presidency.
Anyone who does not condemn her vacation activities is complacent in aiding and comforting the enemy, and is not worthy of any position of authority in the U.S. government. This especially applies to anyone of any party running for President of the U.S. Even if you don’t condemn her activities on ideological grounds, you should condemn them on constitutional grounds. This is not her job, and those Presidential candidates who refuse to speak up are saying that it’s OK for the Congress to have its own separate, contradictory foreign policy when they become President (Apparently, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are all OK with that.). Even if you don’t condemn her actions on a constitutional basis, you should at least be suspicious of someone who justifies her anti-American activities with a vacant, robotic stare except when she declares that “…there’s a new congress in town…” Who is the cowboy now?
You should now have a sense of constitutional urgency that a lying politician, unable and/or unwilling to do her own job, interfering with those who want to do theirs, acting like the cowboy Al Gore once accused President Bush of being, and providing aid and comfort to our enemies, is just two heartbeats away from becoming the leader of the free world. Suddenly, the freedom of the good guys appears in greater jeopardy while the freedom of the bad guys looks pretty solid.
Remove Nancy Pelosi!
Responsible politicians will work for Nancy Pelosi’s removal from her position. Republicans should work to convince their counterparts on the other side of the isle. Democrats should realize that she doesn’t represent mainstream Democrats – just the crackpots who voted to remove the U.S. military from contact with schools in San Francisco. If Nancy Pelosi became President, where would the U.S. military be removed from next? Would there be a U.S. military at all? Probably not. The U.S. military was weakened substantially under Clinton, and he wasn’t nearly as radical as Pelosi.
This is dangerous for the top, the bottom, and everyone in-between.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Illegal Alien Sneak-in Reform – Could We Be Any Dumber?
First of all, they are illegal ALIENS – not immigrants. Immigrants are legal, so stop reinventing the language for cheap political purposes, and stop allowing other to do it.
Second: Bill and Geraldo, nice show. You’re both right; you’re both wrong. Nonetheless, you (or for that matter, Don King) could not have done more of a service to the people of the U.S., and ultimately the world, in publicizing the issue.
Of course the death of Alison Kunhardt, 17 and Tessa Tranchant, 17, in Virginia Beach at the hands of an illegal alien is an immigration issue. Of course it is also a drunk-driving issue.
The difference is that we actually DO something to address drunk driving, while we bury our heads in the sand when it comes to illegal aliens. I am doing my best to respect the request of Tessa’s father Ray, who requested that this tragedy not become a political football.
It should be irrelevant to the issue of immigration that lives have been taken. People who are here illegally have no right to be here. PERIOD! They should be deported NOW! The argument made by nearly everyone that it is impossible to deport nearly 12 million illegal aliens is a defeatist, self-fulfilling prophecy – like pulling out of Iraq. Call it what you will. It is blanket amnesty, a reward for bad behavior and for breaking the law. So what if you can’t get them all?! You’ll never get any if you don’t try. Get as many as you can out. 1 million, 4 million 10 million – fine! 10 million is 83% of the problem. How much have we solved by wringing our politically correct hands over the fact that we may not get the other 2 million. We have solved 0%, with 100% of the problem remaining and growing every day.
We are so concerned that an illegal alien, law breaker might die trying to cross the border. Fine! Better them that the 2 innocent, law abiding teenagers from Virginia Beach or any other innocent – including the millions who could die in a terrorist attack on a large American city.
If the border patrol, or even the minutemen, had orders to shoot to kill those who did not stop when ordered to stop, that would be fine with me. This is an invasion; it has been an invasion for a long time. The only thing lacking are uniforms on those crossing the border.
So what’s the solution? It’s easy. Let’s see if it would have the support of a huge majority of the American people – not the loudest, whiniest ones of course, but the rest of us.
Second: Bill and Geraldo, nice show. You’re both right; you’re both wrong. Nonetheless, you (or for that matter, Don King) could not have done more of a service to the people of the U.S., and ultimately the world, in publicizing the issue.
Of course the death of Alison Kunhardt, 17 and Tessa Tranchant, 17, in Virginia Beach at the hands of an illegal alien is an immigration issue. Of course it is also a drunk-driving issue.
The difference is that we actually DO something to address drunk driving, while we bury our heads in the sand when it comes to illegal aliens. I am doing my best to respect the request of Tessa’s father Ray, who requested that this tragedy not become a political football.
It should be irrelevant to the issue of immigration that lives have been taken. People who are here illegally have no right to be here. PERIOD! They should be deported NOW! The argument made by nearly everyone that it is impossible to deport nearly 12 million illegal aliens is a defeatist, self-fulfilling prophecy – like pulling out of Iraq. Call it what you will. It is blanket amnesty, a reward for bad behavior and for breaking the law. So what if you can’t get them all?! You’ll never get any if you don’t try. Get as many as you can out. 1 million, 4 million 10 million – fine! 10 million is 83% of the problem. How much have we solved by wringing our politically correct hands over the fact that we may not get the other 2 million. We have solved 0%, with 100% of the problem remaining and growing every day.
We are so concerned that an illegal alien, law breaker might die trying to cross the border. Fine! Better them that the 2 innocent, law abiding teenagers from Virginia Beach or any other innocent – including the millions who could die in a terrorist attack on a large American city.
If the border patrol, or even the minutemen, had orders to shoot to kill those who did not stop when ordered to stop, that would be fine with me. This is an invasion; it has been an invasion for a long time. The only thing lacking are uniforms on those crossing the border.
So what’s the solution? It’s easy. Let’s see if it would have the support of a huge majority of the American people – not the loudest, whiniest ones of course, but the rest of us.
- At the border. Shoot to kill anyone crossing the border who does not stop when ordered in both English and the language of the country they are attempting to cross from – in the case of Mexico, English and Spanish; in the case of Canada – English and French. We live in a post 9/11 world, where these are invaders who do not respect our laws, or they wouldn’t be breaking our immigration laws to begin with. We should assume they would be willing to break our other laws as well.
- Since there is ample evidence that the Mexican government is supportive in this invasion, the Mexican government is responsible for the cost of gathering the bodies at the border and transportation home for burial. If the Mexican government would like to come to the U.S. to do the work themselves, we should grant temporary worker permits for that purpose.
- Within the U.S. Sanctuary cities are illegal cities, refusing to uphold the laws of the land. As such, they should lose Federal funding for law enforcement, education, welfare, and health care, since we may safely assume that these funds are going to illegal aliens. I don’t want to support them. Let Virginia Beach, Los Angeles and all the others who would squander my money, squander their own for a change.
- Within the U.S. When an illegal alien is discovered they should be deported. Period! They should be fingerprinted and an FBI record kept for future reference. Of course the Mexican government should be responsible for all deportation costs.
- Within the U.S. When an illegal alien is discovered a second time – after being deported, it should mean an automatic 5 years in jail after conviction. Conviction=jail time; acquittal=deportation+time served (no bail). Each subsequent conviction of re-entering the U.S. illegally carries an additional 5 years. This means that someone convicted 3 times of re-entering the U.S. illegally after being deported would serve 3 terms totaling 30 years (5+10+15).
- Within the U.S. Anyone employing an illegal alien is subject to a fine consisting of their estimated savings + the court costs and deportation costs for that person.
- Within the U.S. Implement a strictly regulated guest worker program, similar to that proposed by President Bush.
It’s all or nothing as for as I’m concerned. When that first dirty bomb goes off in Chicago (or wherever) after having been smuggled across the border, it’s not going to half-detonate. It’s going to go of with all the force that those who hate us can muster. Then you can try to tell the survivors in Chicago (or wherever) about compassion. Do it in person if you dare, and while you’re at it, tell them how you forgot about 9/11.
If you hide your head in the sand, you are going to get your ass kicked. We have and we are. Apparently, you like it. I don’t.
Friday, April 6, 2007
The Road to Damascus
First the bad news - Nancy Pelosi has arrogantly followed though on her plan to undermine U.S. foreign policy by lessening the isolation of one of America’s enemies. It has been plausibly argued that this act has provided aid and comfort to all of America’s enemies by virtue of providing aid and comfort to Syria. After all, if she is willing to talk to Syria over the objections of the officials we have elected to actually carry out foreign policy (and, by extension in our democracy, against the wishes of the American people), why would any of our enemies assume she would not talk with them as well? The answer is that they wouldn’t; in fact, they would assume exactly the opposite. When done consciously, aiding and comforting the enemy is the definition of treason. Since I have always doubted the speaker’s consciousness, this is where I must halt my logic. Unfortunately, the damage is the same, conscious or not.
Now the worse news - Statistically, someone in the Democratic Party has to be smart enough to know that these actions aid and comfort the enemy. Whoever that is and however many of them there may be, since they are conscious, they must call for her replacement as Speaker, since her continuing as Speaker would continue to aid and comfort the enemy. I don’t know who they are – but they do, and they have a responsibility to act. If none act, what am I to conclude? Should I conclude that Democrats place partisan politics above the welfare of the country or that none of them are both smart enough and ballsy enough to hold responsible office? I am uncomfortable either way.
Here is the Speakers latest report to the American people. "The road to Damascus is a road to peace."
Well, I guess that depends on who is on the road and what they are driving. If it’s an American-made fleet of tanks driven by anyone on its way to eliminate the current leadership of that once-proud country, then it’s the road to peace. Too often it has been state-supported Hezbollah terrorists driving bomb-delivery trucks toward Israel. That is not the road to peace.
The road to Damascus – Where are Bob Hope and Bing Crosby when you really need them? If Damascus is such a wonderful, peace-loving place, why not take the Speakers activism to the next level? If the Speaker is such a successful ambassador, why not just offer to be the ambassador to Syria, since she seems so anxious to do that job?
Oh yeah, I forgot for a moment – lack of consciousness.
Now the good news – The U.S. Congress, as a body, did no damage today, as its members were either on an undeserved 2-week Easter vacation or overseas meeting with our enemies.
At least, that’s the way it looks down here at the bottom.
Now the worse news - Statistically, someone in the Democratic Party has to be smart enough to know that these actions aid and comfort the enemy. Whoever that is and however many of them there may be, since they are conscious, they must call for her replacement as Speaker, since her continuing as Speaker would continue to aid and comfort the enemy. I don’t know who they are – but they do, and they have a responsibility to act. If none act, what am I to conclude? Should I conclude that Democrats place partisan politics above the welfare of the country or that none of them are both smart enough and ballsy enough to hold responsible office? I am uncomfortable either way.
Here is the Speakers latest report to the American people. "The road to Damascus is a road to peace."
Well, I guess that depends on who is on the road and what they are driving. If it’s an American-made fleet of tanks driven by anyone on its way to eliminate the current leadership of that once-proud country, then it’s the road to peace. Too often it has been state-supported Hezbollah terrorists driving bomb-delivery trucks toward Israel. That is not the road to peace.
The road to Damascus – Where are Bob Hope and Bing Crosby when you really need them? If Damascus is such a wonderful, peace-loving place, why not take the Speakers activism to the next level? If the Speaker is such a successful ambassador, why not just offer to be the ambassador to Syria, since she seems so anxious to do that job?
Oh yeah, I forgot for a moment – lack of consciousness.
Now the good news – The U.S. Congress, as a body, did no damage today, as its members were either on an undeserved 2-week Easter vacation or overseas meeting with our enemies.
At least, that’s the way it looks down here at the bottom.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Mystery of the Great U.S. Economy
One of the growing number of things that President Bush gets little or no credit for is the fantastic U.S. economy over the course of his administration. This appears to run in (or against) the family and is the fault of the liberal mainstream media in the U.S. encouraged and fueled by liberal Democrats, hungry for ever-more power, both of whom appear to just make stuff up as they go along.
The attacks of 9/11 struck a blow to the U.S. economy that many thought would take years to recover from. According to a September 28, 2001 report from the Fiscal Policy Institute in New York, the economic cost to New York alone was $16.8 billion. The stock market reflected these fears. So I think the fact is pretty well-established that when a skyscraper is destroyed in New York, it tends to depress the economy.
It is now generally agreed among reputable economists that the Bush tax cuts were instrumental in sparing the nation and our trading partners much worse economic performance than what actually came to pass.
Enter the Iraq war, one of the most brilliantly executed and strategic wars in history, the crowning touch to a uniquely patriotic and successful career for which Donald Rumsfeld will never be justly recognized in his lifetime. We won, incidentally, back in 2003. What you currently see in Iraq is the Iraqi revolution – the attempt of the Iraqi people to free themselves from the tyranny of Islamic terrorists (Islamic terrorists are terrorists who have hijacked Islam, incidentally.).
Iraq became a magnet for terrorists because a free and democratic Iraq would mean the expansion of American influence and the loss to terrorists of a safe haven and ally. The fact that terrorists are focused on retaking Iraq means that they are not knocking down skyscrapers in New York or Chicago. That is a good thing. It is a good thing for the people (Americans and legitimate non-citizens) living and working in those buildings. It is a good thing for the U.S. and global economies.
It is the current Iraqi revolution that is enabling the great U.S. economy. It is the current Iraqi revolution and our participation in it (which we should be proud of, just as France was proud of participating in ours) that the anti-war crowd screams about because they have to scream about something, apparently. The anti-war crowd is, by extension, protesting the fact that the U.S. economy is too good, too many skyscrapers are being allowed to remain standing, too many people are being allowed to remain alive in those buildings, and too many families are not being destroyed by the loss of loved ones living and working in those buildings.
For more information on how many lives are at stake in the short run, please see my article of 3/26/2007 – “Dead Heroes=9/11/Victims – The Ignored Upside.”
Thank you again President Bush.
Thank you again Secretary Rumsfeld.
The attacks of 9/11 struck a blow to the U.S. economy that many thought would take years to recover from. According to a September 28, 2001 report from the Fiscal Policy Institute in New York, the economic cost to New York alone was $16.8 billion. The stock market reflected these fears. So I think the fact is pretty well-established that when a skyscraper is destroyed in New York, it tends to depress the economy.
It is now generally agreed among reputable economists that the Bush tax cuts were instrumental in sparing the nation and our trading partners much worse economic performance than what actually came to pass.
Enter the Iraq war, one of the most brilliantly executed and strategic wars in history, the crowning touch to a uniquely patriotic and successful career for which Donald Rumsfeld will never be justly recognized in his lifetime. We won, incidentally, back in 2003. What you currently see in Iraq is the Iraqi revolution – the attempt of the Iraqi people to free themselves from the tyranny of Islamic terrorists (Islamic terrorists are terrorists who have hijacked Islam, incidentally.).
Iraq became a magnet for terrorists because a free and democratic Iraq would mean the expansion of American influence and the loss to terrorists of a safe haven and ally. The fact that terrorists are focused on retaking Iraq means that they are not knocking down skyscrapers in New York or Chicago. That is a good thing. It is a good thing for the people (Americans and legitimate non-citizens) living and working in those buildings. It is a good thing for the U.S. and global economies.
It is the current Iraqi revolution that is enabling the great U.S. economy. It is the current Iraqi revolution and our participation in it (which we should be proud of, just as France was proud of participating in ours) that the anti-war crowd screams about because they have to scream about something, apparently. The anti-war crowd is, by extension, protesting the fact that the U.S. economy is too good, too many skyscrapers are being allowed to remain standing, too many people are being allowed to remain alive in those buildings, and too many families are not being destroyed by the loss of loved ones living and working in those buildings.
For more information on how many lives are at stake in the short run, please see my article of 3/26/2007 – “Dead Heroes=9/11/Victims – The Ignored Upside.”
Thank you again President Bush.
Thank you again Secretary Rumsfeld.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Congress Doesn't Even Disgrace Itself Well
Not only has the U.S. Congress passed bad war funding bills, buying souls and votes for pork in an effort to pass bills that every single person in both houses of congress knows will not be signed into law, but they couldn’t even agree on a unified, bad bill to send to the White House before Easter vacation – a vacation that they neither need nor deserve.
In a time of war, the U.S. Congress takes two weeks for an Easter break rather that complete work on a bill (even a bad one) that would go to the President to fund our troops so they can protect our country.
As long as I’m at it, how many of us get 2 weeks off for Easter? How many of us here at the bottom (You know, the people who pay these hardy vacationers their hefty salaries and fund their ample staffs.) get anything more than 1 day off, usually for Good Friday, and that is usually a floating holiday. The U.S. Congress, however, which continually disgraces itself by passing legislation designed to turn the middle-east over to terrorists, needs a 2-week vacation from its otherwise grueling 3-day work week – not the 5-day work-week we were promised pre-election. On the bright side, it’s 2 weeks during which the Congress is likely to do no further harm.
Not that I hold President Bush blameless. I don’t. Why is he not calling members back for an emergency session of Congress? I thought we were at war. I know we are at war. The soldiers in Iraq are not getting an Easter vacation; neither should the U.S. Government as long as their futures are being held up by partisan politics.
Remember that new direction we supposedly voted for back in November, 2006? It’s now almost 5 months later, and this wasn’t it! We did not vote for the American people to be forced to fight the war on terror on 3 fronts - Iraq, Afghanistan, and the U.S. Congress.
Wake up, people.
In a time of war, the U.S. Congress takes two weeks for an Easter break rather that complete work on a bill (even a bad one) that would go to the President to fund our troops so they can protect our country.
As long as I’m at it, how many of us get 2 weeks off for Easter? How many of us here at the bottom (You know, the people who pay these hardy vacationers their hefty salaries and fund their ample staffs.) get anything more than 1 day off, usually for Good Friday, and that is usually a floating holiday. The U.S. Congress, however, which continually disgraces itself by passing legislation designed to turn the middle-east over to terrorists, needs a 2-week vacation from its otherwise grueling 3-day work week – not the 5-day work-week we were promised pre-election. On the bright side, it’s 2 weeks during which the Congress is likely to do no further harm.
Not that I hold President Bush blameless. I don’t. Why is he not calling members back for an emergency session of Congress? I thought we were at war. I know we are at war. The soldiers in Iraq are not getting an Easter vacation; neither should the U.S. Government as long as their futures are being held up by partisan politics.
Remember that new direction we supposedly voted for back in November, 2006? It’s now almost 5 months later, and this wasn’t it! We did not vote for the American people to be forced to fight the war on terror on 3 fronts - Iraq, Afghanistan, and the U.S. Congress.
Wake up, people.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Congress Disgraces Itself Yet Again, Part 4
The U.S. Senate joined the House of Representatives in disgrace today by selling out for the same dirty pork that the House members sold out for. Who gets the blame today in addition to the Democratic Party leadership, written off long ago as hopeless, America-hating, white-flag marketers and the Democrats who sold out for pork and/or rubber-stamped the House pork? It’s the Republican members joining them.
Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is seeking the presidency, and has turned on the administration in an apparent effort to court the anti-war vote that the Democrats have convinced him carried the 2006 election. I encourage Senator Hagel to switch parties as quickly as possible. His presidential ambitions are over. Conservative Republicans are not defeatists and will therefore never choose him to carry their banner. The Democrats cannot respect him because of the ease with which he flipped, so despite the fact that they are happy to use him as their pawn, he won’t carry their banner either. But at least if he switches parties, the good people of Nebraska can see who he really is and vote him out of office.
Gordon Smith of Oregon represents the state where our troops are being burned in effigy. Coincidence?
These two senators had the power to stop the Senate from joining the House in the disgrace that is the surrender movement. They declined to step up.
I am sorry to say this as well, but I must. I am sick to death of the people in government (and in the media for that matter) referring to each other as great Americans and patriots. Here at the bottom, people who pander, and surrender, and sell out their principles for pork are never, ever seen as great Americans or patriots. They are seen as third-rate politicians who fear for their own petty, cushy, careers (and little else) while squandering taxpayers’ money and being effective only at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Anyway, that’s how it looks today from here at the bottom. We wanted Victory – You gave us Surrender by a vote of 51-47.
Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is seeking the presidency, and has turned on the administration in an apparent effort to court the anti-war vote that the Democrats have convinced him carried the 2006 election. I encourage Senator Hagel to switch parties as quickly as possible. His presidential ambitions are over. Conservative Republicans are not defeatists and will therefore never choose him to carry their banner. The Democrats cannot respect him because of the ease with which he flipped, so despite the fact that they are happy to use him as their pawn, he won’t carry their banner either. But at least if he switches parties, the good people of Nebraska can see who he really is and vote him out of office.
Gordon Smith of Oregon represents the state where our troops are being burned in effigy. Coincidence?
These two senators had the power to stop the Senate from joining the House in the disgrace that is the surrender movement. They declined to step up.
I am sorry to say this as well, but I must. I am sick to death of the people in government (and in the media for that matter) referring to each other as great Americans and patriots. Here at the bottom, people who pander, and surrender, and sell out their principles for pork are never, ever seen as great Americans or patriots. They are seen as third-rate politicians who fear for their own petty, cushy, careers (and little else) while squandering taxpayers’ money and being effective only at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Anyway, that’s how it looks today from here at the bottom. We wanted Victory – You gave us Surrender by a vote of 51-47.
Lies – The Price of Discrimination
On 3/14/07, I published an article titled “Why Did America lie to my generation.” I promised more and I am promising more yet. It’s important and is yet another issue our politicians should be paying attention to but are not because they are too busy trying keep themselves in office.
This article outlines some of the costs of discrimination of various kinds. Knowledge of the cost forces us to ask ourselves if maintaining prejudice is worth the cost. You may think this is a no-brainer in 2007 and if so, good for you. Unfortunately, that is not everyone’s reality as some discrimination is still widespread despite its lack of affordability and stress level increase.
The price of discrimination is that you lose the unique contribution of the class of people that you discriminate against. The price of lying about discrimination is that you lose the contribution of the class of people you are pretending not to discriminate against, plus you further alienate them, plus you will eventually have to eliminate discrimination for real, resulting in at least a double-billing of the investment required to accomplish real non-discrimination.
Sometimes the price can be counted in dollars. Sometimes the price is that we just feel like crap because we know we did the wrong thing. That is a valid cost because that’s what dollars do for us too. Dollars make us feel better because we can bask in the financial security they provide. Either way we, as humans, need to feel good regardless of the feel-good dimension or cause.
Race – we instinctively know it’s wrong to discriminate on the basis of race (at least most of us do). In terms of dollars, we are deprived of the perspective and ideas as well as the maximized economic and tax contribution of about 13% of the U.S. population. We also deprive ourselves and our children of the fruits of our labor as we pour tax money into a welfare system doomed to failure from the beginning, hated by both those who fund it and its recipients.
Gender – Again, we know this type of discrimination is wrong. Discrimination against 50%+ of the population is no longer discrimination; it’s civil war. We also know it’s futile because women will have their revenge no matter what. They always have; they always will. They also see things differently than men, which makes them invaluable in businesses where reaching out to women is essential, which includes every business worth mentioning.
Disabled persons – We are inspired by seeing the disabled being productive in much the same way that we are inspired by putting a human on the moon. There are, obviously potential downsides, hence the word “disabled.” However, these are the people who point out the mistakes we make in taking people and things for granted – the things we never thought about before we allowed them to contribute – ramp access on sidewalks replacing curbs, for example.
Sexual orientation – About the only way to understand anyone who discriminates on this basis any more is that we all know that it’s annoying to have homosexuality thrown in your face, just as it is to have anything thrown it your face. I am not suggesting a “don’t ask, don’t tell” scenario. I am suggesting an “I don’t care, don’t bother me with it” scenario. This is almost totally within the control of the affected class. Having said that, we welcome the creativity and other contributions brought to the table by these community members and miss them when they are absent.
Veteran Status – It doesn’t seem right to be discriminated against because you defended your country. It is currently popular to give war veterans a break. Well, I’m one of them and I don’t remember any breaks, mainly because my war was very unpopular. In fact, I remember some pretty crappy treatment courtesy of Jane Fonda and Jane Fonda wannabes. They are currently at it again, so beware active veterans. The tide can turn on you quickly. For what it’s worth, you’ll always have me. From a dollar perspective, there is the potential for a substantial loss of experience – and not just any experience. We throw away the dogged determination, thorough-training, and crisis-seasoned experience that we need in the business world of 2007 and beyond.
Religion & National Origin – Let’s face it. The problems we face in today’s world – the important problems, the issues of survival – are foisted upon us through the vehicle of religion, and implemented through the tools of state (nationalism). It is time we resurrected a basic truth. Your freedom ends where my space begins. That having been said, no serious person in America believes in this type of discrimination. Profiling is a different matter. That being said, it is the members of these classes who, by attempting to protect the few bad seeds or by rubbing our noses in a known dimension of danger (like the Minnesota Imams did), make the rest of us wary of them all. The vast majority of us want to give you opportunity and benefit from your unique culture. Help us.
Age – We don’t want to go quietly into our golden years. We weren’t raised in quiet times; we didn’t grow up in quiet times; we didn’t foster quiet times; we don’t see quiet times ahead; we aren’t ready for quiet times. We also don’t relish the idea of draining the Social Security system and depriving our children of this valuable resource. This is the dollar cost of age discrimination. If the Social Security is depleted, it will be through the discriminatory actions of those who put us out to pasture.
The common thread through all these elements of discrimination is expressed in a very old, very good book – the best-selling book of all time, in fact.
“…for whatever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” (Galatians 6:7)
This article outlines some of the costs of discrimination of various kinds. Knowledge of the cost forces us to ask ourselves if maintaining prejudice is worth the cost. You may think this is a no-brainer in 2007 and if so, good for you. Unfortunately, that is not everyone’s reality as some discrimination is still widespread despite its lack of affordability and stress level increase.
The price of discrimination is that you lose the unique contribution of the class of people that you discriminate against. The price of lying about discrimination is that you lose the contribution of the class of people you are pretending not to discriminate against, plus you further alienate them, plus you will eventually have to eliminate discrimination for real, resulting in at least a double-billing of the investment required to accomplish real non-discrimination.
Sometimes the price can be counted in dollars. Sometimes the price is that we just feel like crap because we know we did the wrong thing. That is a valid cost because that’s what dollars do for us too. Dollars make us feel better because we can bask in the financial security they provide. Either way we, as humans, need to feel good regardless of the feel-good dimension or cause.
Race – we instinctively know it’s wrong to discriminate on the basis of race (at least most of us do). In terms of dollars, we are deprived of the perspective and ideas as well as the maximized economic and tax contribution of about 13% of the U.S. population. We also deprive ourselves and our children of the fruits of our labor as we pour tax money into a welfare system doomed to failure from the beginning, hated by both those who fund it and its recipients.
Gender – Again, we know this type of discrimination is wrong. Discrimination against 50%+ of the population is no longer discrimination; it’s civil war. We also know it’s futile because women will have their revenge no matter what. They always have; they always will. They also see things differently than men, which makes them invaluable in businesses where reaching out to women is essential, which includes every business worth mentioning.
Disabled persons – We are inspired by seeing the disabled being productive in much the same way that we are inspired by putting a human on the moon. There are, obviously potential downsides, hence the word “disabled.” However, these are the people who point out the mistakes we make in taking people and things for granted – the things we never thought about before we allowed them to contribute – ramp access on sidewalks replacing curbs, for example.
Sexual orientation – About the only way to understand anyone who discriminates on this basis any more is that we all know that it’s annoying to have homosexuality thrown in your face, just as it is to have anything thrown it your face. I am not suggesting a “don’t ask, don’t tell” scenario. I am suggesting an “I don’t care, don’t bother me with it” scenario. This is almost totally within the control of the affected class. Having said that, we welcome the creativity and other contributions brought to the table by these community members and miss them when they are absent.
Veteran Status – It doesn’t seem right to be discriminated against because you defended your country. It is currently popular to give war veterans a break. Well, I’m one of them and I don’t remember any breaks, mainly because my war was very unpopular. In fact, I remember some pretty crappy treatment courtesy of Jane Fonda and Jane Fonda wannabes. They are currently at it again, so beware active veterans. The tide can turn on you quickly. For what it’s worth, you’ll always have me. From a dollar perspective, there is the potential for a substantial loss of experience – and not just any experience. We throw away the dogged determination, thorough-training, and crisis-seasoned experience that we need in the business world of 2007 and beyond.
Religion & National Origin – Let’s face it. The problems we face in today’s world – the important problems, the issues of survival – are foisted upon us through the vehicle of religion, and implemented through the tools of state (nationalism). It is time we resurrected a basic truth. Your freedom ends where my space begins. That having been said, no serious person in America believes in this type of discrimination. Profiling is a different matter. That being said, it is the members of these classes who, by attempting to protect the few bad seeds or by rubbing our noses in a known dimension of danger (like the Minnesota Imams did), make the rest of us wary of them all. The vast majority of us want to give you opportunity and benefit from your unique culture. Help us.
Age – We don’t want to go quietly into our golden years. We weren’t raised in quiet times; we didn’t grow up in quiet times; we didn’t foster quiet times; we don’t see quiet times ahead; we aren’t ready for quiet times. We also don’t relish the idea of draining the Social Security system and depriving our children of this valuable resource. This is the dollar cost of age discrimination. If the Social Security is depleted, it will be through the discriminatory actions of those who put us out to pasture.
The common thread through all these elements of discrimination is expressed in a very old, very good book – the best-selling book of all time, in fact.
“…for whatever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” (Galatians 6:7)
Monday, March 26, 2007
Dead Heroes=9/11 Victims - The Ignored Upside
Not too long ago we reached a grizzly milestone in Iraq – to the apparent glee of the blathering anti-war crowd so deeply invested in American defeat. Almost as depressing is the fact that the conservative commentators that I have heard have blown this off as irrelevant. If they don’t believe that they haven’t blown it off, they certainly haven’t emphasized or embraced the silver lining in this dark cloud enthusiastically enough to suit me. They are wrong. It is extremely relevant and extremely silver.
What is most relevant is that the grizzly milestone was reached more that 5 years after 9/11/2001 and after 4 years of combat in Iraq. To see what is most silver, let’s do a little math, keeping in mind that the purpose of the military is, ultimately, to protect the citizenry who supports them at home while they implement and support diplomatic policy and initiatives at home and around the world.
I’ll use round nice numbers in an attempt to keep this simple enough for even the most logic-challenged anti-war activist to follow. On 9/11, 3,000 people were killed by terrorists in an unprovoked attack here on United States soil. REMEMBER? In the months after 9/11, the military disrupted ongoing terror operations that would have killed more Americans – by most estimates, many more Americans. How many? Although I firmly believe that there could have been the equivalent of a 9/11 about every 3 months, I am willing to concede a minimum of 1 per year.
Doing the math based on the minimum yearly 9/11-equivalent, the military and related intelligence has saved about 15,000 (3,000/year for 5 years) American lives at a minimum. The more realistic scenario of a 9/11-equivalent every 3 month would yield a total of 60,000 (3,000/quarter for 5 years) American lives. And this doesn’t even take into account all the dead terrorists who will never harm anyone again, American or other – BONUS! Keep in mind that a single dirty bomb would likely triple this number and a single nuclear strike could send the number soaring into the hundreds of thousands if not millions. Overstated you say? Not with maniacs out there who already have nuclear capability or are trying desperately (happily risking the well-being of their citizens) to develop nuclear capacity and are unrestrained by instructions from their God that using it would be wrong.
So is the military doing its job? You betcha! Has the cowboy from Texas done his number one job? Yep! Do Americans recognize and appreciate it? Based on the polls, I must conclude that they apparently do not.
Are the anti-war, cool-aid drinkers really that anxious to have us all incinerated or do they require some remedial math? I have done my best to provide the remedial math, but, truthfully, I have no clue. Maybe you do.
But I do know two things:
- Right now, this much maligned cowboy-President from Texas, his Vice-President (hated in America for once running a successful American corporation successfully, of all things), and his team are all that stands between you and the next holocaust.
- We have less than 2 years to find someone as tough and principled as President Bush to take his place and be willing to stand between us and the next holocaust despite the politically-correct pressure to surrender and the lack of appreciation demonstrated by the American public.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the armed services and intelligence services as well as to your chains of command.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Congress Disgraces Itself Yet Again, Part 3
I told you I wouldn’t run out of numbers for the many parts of this topic that the House of Representatives seems hell-bent on testing me on. I can count to 3 and a lot higher, and it appears I will need to. They don’t think I can because I’m here at the bottom, but as usual, they’re wrong. However, based on the utterly stupid, self-serving, soul-selling, tax-squandering vote in the House today, it would not unreasonable to ask if the Democratic Party leadership can. But that is not my purpose today.
The Democrat leadership today squandered more of my money to pass a piece of legislation that attempts to turn over the middle-east to terrorists, has no chance of becoming law, persuaded previously sensible members of their party to sell their souls for pork, and will fail to appease the most radical wing of the party – which had to be the real goal, since no other goal is realistically achievable, even on the bizarro planet of Pelosi.
As Nancy Pelosi and her “leadership team” bought the souls of those previously sensible congress-people who once voted their conscience, I wonder if she remembered her pre-election pledge to run the most ethical congress ever. Yeah, right! My guess (and I realize it doesn’t count because I am down here at the bottom) is that since the secular-progressive crowd doesn’t deal in souls except to deny their nourishment wherever possible, they are not really capable of recognizing the sale of one. So apparently, buying and selling souls (or if you please consciences) is perfectly ethical in the 110th Congress.
For those of you up there at the top who sold out today, this was soul-selling. Recognize it. You sold them cheap – ultimately for no gain. You don’t even get the pork you sold them for. Ironically most of the people in the middle-east (you remember, the people you are selling out to their radical, militant, totalitarian neighbors) wouldn’t touch pork, lest they lose their souls.
Maybe there is a lesson there that we can take from Islam and Judaism. I meant the rest of us, of course, not House Democrats and others who ultimately cast votes that favor terrorists.
That’s the very sad view of the U.S.Congress again today here at the bottom.
The Democrat leadership today squandered more of my money to pass a piece of legislation that attempts to turn over the middle-east to terrorists, has no chance of becoming law, persuaded previously sensible members of their party to sell their souls for pork, and will fail to appease the most radical wing of the party – which had to be the real goal, since no other goal is realistically achievable, even on the bizarro planet of Pelosi.
As Nancy Pelosi and her “leadership team” bought the souls of those previously sensible congress-people who once voted their conscience, I wonder if she remembered her pre-election pledge to run the most ethical congress ever. Yeah, right! My guess (and I realize it doesn’t count because I am down here at the bottom) is that since the secular-progressive crowd doesn’t deal in souls except to deny their nourishment wherever possible, they are not really capable of recognizing the sale of one. So apparently, buying and selling souls (or if you please consciences) is perfectly ethical in the 110th Congress.
For those of you up there at the top who sold out today, this was soul-selling. Recognize it. You sold them cheap – ultimately for no gain. You don’t even get the pork you sold them for. Ironically most of the people in the middle-east (you remember, the people you are selling out to their radical, militant, totalitarian neighbors) wouldn’t touch pork, lest they lose their souls.
Maybe there is a lesson there that we can take from Islam and Judaism. I meant the rest of us, of course, not House Democrats and others who ultimately cast votes that favor terrorists.
That’s the very sad view of the U.S.Congress again today here at the bottom.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Is Real – Sort of
Hillary has recently resurrected the concept of the vast right-wing conspiracy. She has been widely criticized for it, having been called paranoid, desperate, and unoriginal, since this is at least a decade-plus old concept of hers.
But let’s put aside the utter stupidity of putting this out there again, looking desperate and forcing her husband’s impeachment back into the minds of voters accompanied by images of her looking like not the assertive, aggressive woman she needs to look like to be the first woman to make a serious run for the presidency, but the meek, abused, pitiable figure of a mentally-abused woman who ultimately stood by her man – right or wrong – insulting Tammy Wynette in the process.
As I say, let’s put that aside. There is, indeed, a vast right-wing conspiracy. Of course, you have to define right-wing (not to be too Clintonian about it). Defining it as right of the Clintons and referencing the election results of 1992 and 1996, we get a clear clue as to what the right-wing conspiracy really is. It’s called a majority of the American electorate. It is the majority that did NOT VOTE FOR Bill Clinton (and especially Hillary) in either election.
The conspiracy grew smaller in 1996, the year in which Hillary was less visible and the Newt Gingrich Congress pulled Bill back toward the center, than 1992, when they ran on a 2-for-1 blue light special platform. History tells us that the vast right-wing conspiracy is likely to grow back to its 1992 level and beyond, as Hillary is decidedly left of Bill.
1992 Election results:
Clinton – 43.0%
Bush – 37.4%
Perrot – 18.9%
Other – 0.6%
1996 Election results:
Clinton – 49.2%
Dole – 40.7%
Perrot – 8.4%
Other – 1.6%
That’s right, Hillary. It’s called a majority.
But let’s put aside the utter stupidity of putting this out there again, looking desperate and forcing her husband’s impeachment back into the minds of voters accompanied by images of her looking like not the assertive, aggressive woman she needs to look like to be the first woman to make a serious run for the presidency, but the meek, abused, pitiable figure of a mentally-abused woman who ultimately stood by her man – right or wrong – insulting Tammy Wynette in the process.
As I say, let’s put that aside. There is, indeed, a vast right-wing conspiracy. Of course, you have to define right-wing (not to be too Clintonian about it). Defining it as right of the Clintons and referencing the election results of 1992 and 1996, we get a clear clue as to what the right-wing conspiracy really is. It’s called a majority of the American electorate. It is the majority that did NOT VOTE FOR Bill Clinton (and especially Hillary) in either election.
The conspiracy grew smaller in 1996, the year in which Hillary was less visible and the Newt Gingrich Congress pulled Bill back toward the center, than 1992, when they ran on a 2-for-1 blue light special platform. History tells us that the vast right-wing conspiracy is likely to grow back to its 1992 level and beyond, as Hillary is decidedly left of Bill.
1992 Election results:
Clinton – 43.0%
Bush – 37.4%
Perrot – 18.9%
Other – 0.6%
1996 Election results:
Clinton – 49.2%
Dole – 40.7%
Perrot – 8.4%
Other – 1.6%
That’s right, Hillary. It’s called a majority.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Congress Disgraces Itself Yet Again, Part 2
It appears that the 110th Congress is hell-bent on making me reuse this title until I run out of numbers to place behind it. So be it and good luck with that. The Democrat leadership (and I use the word leadership in its loosest possible sense) have now defined themselves as a group with no agenda other than to get elected and obstruct progress, no new ideas, and no inclination or competence to do its own job (as opposed to the presidents job).
Who gives a damn what Valerie Plame has to say? The answer, apparently, is Henry Waxman. Take it offline and don’t spend my money to replay this. But since she has already testified and her testimony is in conflict with the CIA and State Department officials, will she be investigated and potentially prosecuted for perjury, or is she anti-Republican enough to get a pass?
The Democrats own guy, Patrick Fitzgerald, has already determined, early on in his investigation I might add, that there was no underlying crime to prosecute. The investigation should have stopped there, but it didn’t. The best he could do was to scapegoat Scooter Libby. Not good enough for the Democrat-controlled Congress.
So, having told us in the campaign leading up to the November elections that the Republicans have made a mess out of the United States, what do they do once they are in power. Let’s see:
- Try – and fail – to micromanage the war effort in Iraq,
- Try – and fail – to send a message to the president that would persuade him pull out of Iraq.
- Try – and succeed – to send a message to terrorists that all they have to do is wait us out and Iraq is theirs.
- Try – and succeed – to turn a routine realignment of U.S. Attorneys into an expensive investigation that will squander even more of my money for their own personal gain and scare some of the weak-kneed Republicans into abandoning their party and principles (Thanks for exposing them, incidentally.).
- Try – and will probably succeed – to resurrect the recently closed case on the CIA non-leak non-story wasting, yet again, even more of my money, but helping to promote a new book from a person who conspired to undermine the president, thus turning the House of Representatives into a daytime talk show with me footing the bill.
And all this after only less than 3 months in office. Pathetic! Why is Congress willing to surrender to terrorists, yet not give our legally elected President a chance to do his job? Why can’t Congress do its own job? I want my money back.
Speaking of surrendering, President Bush, why are you playing this stupid game with Congress? Why can you stand up to terrorists like the patriot that you are, but not stand up to Democrats’ babbling, irrelevant idiocy? Are they scarier than the terrorists? Why did you permit Alberto Gonzales to testify on a non-issue? What could their possibly have been to lie about? You are quickly becoming an enabler, dare I say a beltway insider. Sorry, but please stop it and keep your eye on the ball. Somebody has to, since those in the Legislative branch couldn’t even decide what the ball looks like even if they could find the right glasses to allow them to see it, much less find it to keep an eye on it - even if they cared, which they don't.
That’s the very sad view today here at the bottom.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Why Did America Lie to My Generation?
America lied to my generation. America lied about a lot of things. America lied about discrimination. America lied about diversity and still does. America lied about how it valued experience and still does. America lied about economic security and it still tries to, though the lies are becoming more transparent every day. America lied about competition and still does. America lied about what it valued and still does. These lies are embodied and promoted by political correctness and enforced by the Politically Correctness Police.
This is not a condemnation of any presidential administration or party. It is not a condemnation of America; the United States is still the greatest country this planet has ever seen. It is, however, a comment on how we, as a people, lie to ourselves and, more to the point, how segments of the American society lie to each other. It is a prediction of the penalties we will pay for those lies. It is something that I cannot possibly address in one article, so there will be more to follow.
When I first began my career, we were told we could count on cradle-to-grave employment. There were good things and bad things about that. The good thing was that we were more secure, were able to avoid the stresses that we deal with today, and planning for the future was relatively easy. The bad thing was that people sometimes got too secure, and tended to get arrogant and lazy. That drove employer costs and product prices up while driving productivity down. So we all understood when things began to change, that life by definition is not static. The cradle-to-grave concept faded away, and that was OK.
We were told we could count on the social security system, and now we are told that that may not be the case after paying increased amounts of money into it for all these years. That’s less OK, but in and of itself, bearable.
We were told that we would all be living longer, and, in general, we do because of the excellent health care system we have here in the U.S.A. Then the prices went up, and we were told that we would need to pay part of it. Some of us couldn’t really afford the higher cost of that excellent health care. When we retire (or are retired prematurely) many of us can’t afford the cost of that excellent health care, which remains excellent only as long as we can afford it. The consequence is the current national health care crisis that will play a role in determining at least the next two or three presidents of the United States. This is not OK on many levels.
Government has 3 missions: to protect its citizens from wrongdoing from outsiders, to protect its citizens from wrongdoing from one another, and to provide a stable and viable currency to facilitate economic transactions. Health care fits it where? It depends on how you define wrongdoing, but by my definition – nowhere.
We were given 401K plans to take the place of the traditional pension and social security. How is that working out? Not that well.
The result is a huge number of boomers that have lost most or all of the traditional pension they were promised, may lose much of the social security they were promised, and have had inadequate time to make their 401Ks and IRAs robust enough to make up the gaps. Despite these lies, we have tried to help out by resigning ourselves to working longer. We are not anxious to begin draining the social security system and bankrupt it for our children, and since as we have been promised that we will be living longer, why not work longer? I’ll tell you why not. You won’t let us.
There is now age discrimination in the U.S. toward the generation that worked so hard to eliminate all types of discrimination. I’m not saying that we solved it all, but we did a lot to make the situation a whole lot better. We did much more than enough on that score that we don’t deserve this treatment.
The result of this is that our children, not us, are causing the draining of the social security system prematurely, and will bankrupt it for themselves. The laws of mathematics demand retribution for the lies of any discrimination. We learned the lesson early in our lives. The current generation in power seems not to have learned it yet. The options in dealing with age discrimination are to let us contribute and help you save the future or bankrupt your own future – your choice. More to come.
This is not a condemnation of any presidential administration or party. It is not a condemnation of America; the United States is still the greatest country this planet has ever seen. It is, however, a comment on how we, as a people, lie to ourselves and, more to the point, how segments of the American society lie to each other. It is a prediction of the penalties we will pay for those lies. It is something that I cannot possibly address in one article, so there will be more to follow.
When I first began my career, we were told we could count on cradle-to-grave employment. There were good things and bad things about that. The good thing was that we were more secure, were able to avoid the stresses that we deal with today, and planning for the future was relatively easy. The bad thing was that people sometimes got too secure, and tended to get arrogant and lazy. That drove employer costs and product prices up while driving productivity down. So we all understood when things began to change, that life by definition is not static. The cradle-to-grave concept faded away, and that was OK.
We were told we could count on the social security system, and now we are told that that may not be the case after paying increased amounts of money into it for all these years. That’s less OK, but in and of itself, bearable.
We were told that we would all be living longer, and, in general, we do because of the excellent health care system we have here in the U.S.A. Then the prices went up, and we were told that we would need to pay part of it. Some of us couldn’t really afford the higher cost of that excellent health care. When we retire (or are retired prematurely) many of us can’t afford the cost of that excellent health care, which remains excellent only as long as we can afford it. The consequence is the current national health care crisis that will play a role in determining at least the next two or three presidents of the United States. This is not OK on many levels.
Government has 3 missions: to protect its citizens from wrongdoing from outsiders, to protect its citizens from wrongdoing from one another, and to provide a stable and viable currency to facilitate economic transactions. Health care fits it where? It depends on how you define wrongdoing, but by my definition – nowhere.
We were given 401K plans to take the place of the traditional pension and social security. How is that working out? Not that well.
The result is a huge number of boomers that have lost most or all of the traditional pension they were promised, may lose much of the social security they were promised, and have had inadequate time to make their 401Ks and IRAs robust enough to make up the gaps. Despite these lies, we have tried to help out by resigning ourselves to working longer. We are not anxious to begin draining the social security system and bankrupt it for our children, and since as we have been promised that we will be living longer, why not work longer? I’ll tell you why not. You won’t let us.
There is now age discrimination in the U.S. toward the generation that worked so hard to eliminate all types of discrimination. I’m not saying that we solved it all, but we did a lot to make the situation a whole lot better. We did much more than enough on that score that we don’t deserve this treatment.
The result of this is that our children, not us, are causing the draining of the social security system prematurely, and will bankrupt it for themselves. The laws of mathematics demand retribution for the lies of any discrimination. We learned the lesson early in our lives. The current generation in power seems not to have learned it yet. The options in dealing with age discrimination are to let us contribute and help you save the future or bankrupt your own future – your choice. More to come.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Bi-partisan = Bull-partisan?
Would all of you arrogant politicians please stop telling us about bi-partisan solutions that you are pursuing? We, here at the bottom, know better, whether you do or not. We wish you did, but if you do, there is no evidence of it. If either case, it is obvious that you think so little of us that you just spout it out whenever you run out of something useful to say, which happens way too often, incidentally. We are not fooled, and we are not amused. Sometimes, in the most extreme cases, we are marginally entertained for a few moments, but try as you may, you are no substitute for Moe, Larry, and Curly.
When you accuse someone of not being bi-partisan, we know that what you mean is that they don’t agree with your all righteous, all-knowing, self-designated omnipotent view of the world and refuse to give in despite your obviously superior position. When you shower praise on a member of another party for being bi-partisan, we know that what you mean is that the lily-livered moron caved.
We also know that there is nothing wrong with partisanship as long as it is not taken to the extreme of gang mentality, as the Democratic Party did during the Clinton impeachment and trial or when it becomes militant and fanatic like radical Islam. Political parties exist for a reason. Some people believe in one fundamental view of how life should work. Others believe in a different fundamental view of how life should work.
To become bi-partisan is to either find common ground or to utterly surrender one’s principles to the oppositions whining. And since there has been, essentially, no common ground between Democrats and Republicans since November of 2000 (as evidenced by the experience of Democrats automatically putting down Republican ideas publicly and filibustering no matter what President Bush or other Republicans want to do), it has been surrendering principles.
Give the Democrats credit. It has not been them surrendering their principles (This is not to in any way imply that their principles are worth fighting for, but they do.). It has been the Republicans, allowing their principles (the ones we elected them to stand up for) to be compromised for the sake of bi-partisanship. That is why they were voted out of power in the legislature – not because of Iraq.
Whose approval rating was lower? Was it President Bush or Congress? It was Congress. Still, we have Republican Congressmen idiotically trying to distance themselves from the man who has higher approval ratings than they do. It’s a little like following a buy-high, sell low investment strategy.
No wonder they don’t know what bi-partisan actually means. But we do, so stop insulting us. We, here at the bottom, negotiate and reach reasonable conclusions and compromises with our friends, family members, neighbors, and business associates who have different political and religious views every single day of our lives. Our world works. Yours doesn’t. Take a lesson (a real one – not a pretend one) for a change.
When you accuse someone of not being bi-partisan, we know that what you mean is that they don’t agree with your all righteous, all-knowing, self-designated omnipotent view of the world and refuse to give in despite your obviously superior position. When you shower praise on a member of another party for being bi-partisan, we know that what you mean is that the lily-livered moron caved.
We also know that there is nothing wrong with partisanship as long as it is not taken to the extreme of gang mentality, as the Democratic Party did during the Clinton impeachment and trial or when it becomes militant and fanatic like radical Islam. Political parties exist for a reason. Some people believe in one fundamental view of how life should work. Others believe in a different fundamental view of how life should work.
To become bi-partisan is to either find common ground or to utterly surrender one’s principles to the oppositions whining. And since there has been, essentially, no common ground between Democrats and Republicans since November of 2000 (as evidenced by the experience of Democrats automatically putting down Republican ideas publicly and filibustering no matter what President Bush or other Republicans want to do), it has been surrendering principles.
Give the Democrats credit. It has not been them surrendering their principles (This is not to in any way imply that their principles are worth fighting for, but they do.). It has been the Republicans, allowing their principles (the ones we elected them to stand up for) to be compromised for the sake of bi-partisanship. That is why they were voted out of power in the legislature – not because of Iraq.
Whose approval rating was lower? Was it President Bush or Congress? It was Congress. Still, we have Republican Congressmen idiotically trying to distance themselves from the man who has higher approval ratings than they do. It’s a little like following a buy-high, sell low investment strategy.
No wonder they don’t know what bi-partisan actually means. But we do, so stop insulting us. We, here at the bottom, negotiate and reach reasonable conclusions and compromises with our friends, family members, neighbors, and business associates who have different political and religious views every single day of our lives. Our world works. Yours doesn’t. Take a lesson (a real one – not a pretend one) for a change.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Jesus WOULD BE appalled?
This past weekend, John Edwards said: "I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs," then added "I think he would be appalled, actually."
What does John Edwards mean WOULD BE? Christians believe in a living Christ. Either he IS disappointed and appalled or he ISN’T. If you are speaking in a religious context, then the term “Would be” implies that Jesus is either dead or otherwise unaware of world events.
It is one thing to speculate on what Jesus would SAY or DO, since he doesn’t usually speak out or assault anyone publicly. It is quite another to speculate on what Jesus WOULD THINK, and another yet to speculate on what we believe he DOES THINK. Each implies a different view of the spiritual world
John Edwards is a trial lawyer by trade. He chooses his words carefully in order to get those big decisions from juries – decisions that have made him wealthy enough to run for president. We must assume that his words reveal his insincerity and opportunistic character.
What does John Edwards mean WOULD BE? Christians believe in a living Christ. Either he IS disappointed and appalled or he ISN’T. If you are speaking in a religious context, then the term “Would be” implies that Jesus is either dead or otherwise unaware of world events.
It is one thing to speculate on what Jesus would SAY or DO, since he doesn’t usually speak out or assault anyone publicly. It is quite another to speculate on what Jesus WOULD THINK, and another yet to speculate on what we believe he DOES THINK. Each implies a different view of the spiritual world
John Edwards is a trial lawyer by trade. He chooses his words carefully in order to get those big decisions from juries – decisions that have made him wealthy enough to run for president. We must assume that his words reveal his insincerity and opportunistic character.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Anna Nicole Has Become an Old South Park Episode
A few days ago, a gap was filled in that made the Anna Nicole Smith legacy one step closer to the South Park multi-episode saga that promised to tell us who Eric Cartman’s father was.
Cartman’s mother had sex with nearly every man in town, so there was all this doubt about who Cartman’s father was. The possible scenarios were played from each potential father’s point of view and on 2/25/1998 we were left with a cliffhanger at the end of the season. We were promised the answer at the beginning of the new season, scheduled for 4/1/1998.
On 4/1/1998, the creators of South Park gave us an entirely irrelevant episode, and made us wait until 4/22/1998 to give us the conclusion “Cartman’s Mom is Still a Dirty Slut”. Even the time line is working out to be comparable.
At that point we learned that Cartman’s Father was Cartman’s hermaphrodite mother. Although there is no evidence of this particular twist, what happened a few days ago? Among other things, a woman came forward, declaring that SHE had had an affair with Anna Nicole. Mercifully, she has not claimed to be the father. Would anyone have been surprised if she had?
How is Danielynn’s life to-date different from a South Park episode? Sadly, to-date, it is not.
More to the point, let the woman rest in peace already (This means you, Mom.), get the daughter to her real father (This means you Howard, and whatever judge is up for an audition next.) so she can live as normal a life as is possible under the circumstances, and allow us to get on with addressing the problems that threaten to annihilate us?
Cartman’s mother had sex with nearly every man in town, so there was all this doubt about who Cartman’s father was. The possible scenarios were played from each potential father’s point of view and on 2/25/1998 we were left with a cliffhanger at the end of the season. We were promised the answer at the beginning of the new season, scheduled for 4/1/1998.
On 4/1/1998, the creators of South Park gave us an entirely irrelevant episode, and made us wait until 4/22/1998 to give us the conclusion “Cartman’s Mom is Still a Dirty Slut”. Even the time line is working out to be comparable.
At that point we learned that Cartman’s Father was Cartman’s hermaphrodite mother. Although there is no evidence of this particular twist, what happened a few days ago? Among other things, a woman came forward, declaring that SHE had had an affair with Anna Nicole. Mercifully, she has not claimed to be the father. Would anyone have been surprised if she had?
How is Danielynn’s life to-date different from a South Park episode? Sadly, to-date, it is not.
More to the point, let the woman rest in peace already (This means you, Mom.), get the daughter to her real father (This means you Howard, and whatever judge is up for an audition next.) so she can live as normal a life as is possible under the circumstances, and allow us to get on with addressing the problems that threaten to annihilate us?
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Libby is less Guilty than Clinton
I could be wrong, but this is what it looks like here at the bottom.
Ever since Bill Clinton was impeached in December, 1998 we have been told so many times that it was all about sex that the Pavlovian among us have been trained to believe it. It wasn’t about sex. It was about rape (Juanita Broaddrick) and sexual harassment (Paula Jones) – crimes that people typically either go to jail for or lose their jobs over.
While it is true that the very narrow scope of Ken Starr’s investigation was the Monica Lewinski affair, there is no doubt that without the preceding and underlying scandals, it would not have reached the constitutional crisis stage. Nobody really wanted to impeach Clinton. He forced it. It was a political loser from the beginning for Republicans. If they had been successful in the impeachment proceedings, Al Gore would have been catapulted into the White House, and would have been reelected in 2000 on the sympathy vote. The analogy is locking up Al Capone for tax evasion instead of the many other more heinous crimes that was his true legacy.
In the Clinton case, there was, at least, an acknowledged crime committed. Even his supporters acknowledged that he lied about sex; they admitted that he lied. What else could he have done, after all? Well, for one thing, he could have told us that it was none of our business and refused to answer questions about it. Perjury is a crime. There was plenty of evidence to suggest that other, more serious crimes were committed – crimes like rape and sexual harassment.
Scooter Libby, on the other hand, may have lied or not. He may have honestly had a memory lapse or not. He may have been attempting to use delaying tactics to soften the blow when it was finally discovered that there was no underlying crime committed or not. Since there was no underlying crime, Libby had no reason to lie. There goes the motive. But apparently, Patrick Fitzgerald, a United States Attorney with a previously stellar reputation in my native Chicago, decided that in the national arena of anti-Bush politics, a motive is a minor annoyance – like lying about “sex.”
So let’s see. Clinton gets off (no pun intended, honestly) because he lied about sex, even though it was not all about sex. It was about rape and sexual harassment. Libby is put on trial because he may or may not have lied about NOTHING.
The Republicans are vilified about spending millions of our dollars to prosecute someone his supporters admitted committed the crime he was accused of. Democrats spend some number of dollars that the Republicans are too afraid to discover and tell us about to prosecute someone who, it appears, is probably not guilty of doing anything.
So, more time and money is wasted for the personal gain of politicians who feel the need to put on a show is a higher priority than doing the peoples work. Nice job, elected officials.
Ever since Bill Clinton was impeached in December, 1998 we have been told so many times that it was all about sex that the Pavlovian among us have been trained to believe it. It wasn’t about sex. It was about rape (Juanita Broaddrick) and sexual harassment (Paula Jones) – crimes that people typically either go to jail for or lose their jobs over.
While it is true that the very narrow scope of Ken Starr’s investigation was the Monica Lewinski affair, there is no doubt that without the preceding and underlying scandals, it would not have reached the constitutional crisis stage. Nobody really wanted to impeach Clinton. He forced it. It was a political loser from the beginning for Republicans. If they had been successful in the impeachment proceedings, Al Gore would have been catapulted into the White House, and would have been reelected in 2000 on the sympathy vote. The analogy is locking up Al Capone for tax evasion instead of the many other more heinous crimes that was his true legacy.
In the Clinton case, there was, at least, an acknowledged crime committed. Even his supporters acknowledged that he lied about sex; they admitted that he lied. What else could he have done, after all? Well, for one thing, he could have told us that it was none of our business and refused to answer questions about it. Perjury is a crime. There was plenty of evidence to suggest that other, more serious crimes were committed – crimes like rape and sexual harassment.
Scooter Libby, on the other hand, may have lied or not. He may have honestly had a memory lapse or not. He may have been attempting to use delaying tactics to soften the blow when it was finally discovered that there was no underlying crime committed or not. Since there was no underlying crime, Libby had no reason to lie. There goes the motive. But apparently, Patrick Fitzgerald, a United States Attorney with a previously stellar reputation in my native Chicago, decided that in the national arena of anti-Bush politics, a motive is a minor annoyance – like lying about “sex.”
So let’s see. Clinton gets off (no pun intended, honestly) because he lied about sex, even though it was not all about sex. It was about rape and sexual harassment. Libby is put on trial because he may or may not have lied about NOTHING.
The Republicans are vilified about spending millions of our dollars to prosecute someone his supporters admitted committed the crime he was accused of. Democrats spend some number of dollars that the Republicans are too afraid to discover and tell us about to prosecute someone who, it appears, is probably not guilty of doing anything.
So, more time and money is wasted for the personal gain of politicians who feel the need to put on a show is a higher priority than doing the peoples work. Nice job, elected officials.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
