Light a Candle...: 01/01/2005

Joy Expodes Across Iraq...

Iraqis are joyfully celebrating their first election according to this report from the Washinton Times.

Indeed, considering the pain and suffering they went through to get to this point, they have accomplished something worth celebrating.

"The street was crowded since 7 a.m. I woke up to the voices of the people
on the street -- I did not expect such a number," said Thaer, a Sunni engineer
who lives in eastern Baghdad, as he sat chatting with his neighborhood friends.
"Everybody feels that he is human today and can have a
free voice. No one wanted to lose his chance," he said, elated at the chance to
cast his ballot. "I think today will show these terrorists lost their chance in
this country. "But I want to say one thing: I want to
thank the U.S. soldiers for bringing this to Iraq," said the ex-soldier who had
been imprisoned by deposed ruler Saddam Hussein. "Without them, we would have to vote for Saddam always."

Iraqi terrorists swamp polling places, disrupt bombing reports...

Slightly tongue in cheek...

Check this out at Scrapple face...

Yea, all those nasty terrorists going vote, overwhelming the insurgents who just wanted to set some bombs...

I can feel MSM's pain...

Iraq votes, despite gloom/doom reports and Dems..

Iraq has concluded its first democratic (actually republican) vote. The results are being tabulated and the country is taking its first steps down a road too seldom trod in that part of the world.

History tells us that this is the easy part, the hard part of making it work is still before them. This with covert opposition of their neighbors, make progress a true expression of the strength and determination of the Iraqi people. They will need our continued support as they begin to grow their internal infrastructure. Never doubt that the rise of a democratic republic government in Iraq is the gravest threat to their neighbors (Syria, Jordan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc).

I predict that, like the Afganistan elections, the Iraqi democratic development will be under reported, and negatively reported when that occurs. Kerry is already trying to position himself on both sides of the issue (thanks to Short Final, Cleared to Land).

Why we need a two party system...

Amy Ridenour and Instapundit have been participating in an on going discussion on how the Democrats can regain popular support. However, it begs the basic question - is a relevant opposition to the GOP needed?

I say that it is, most emphatically. To understand why, one need look no further than Mexico, where one party dominated its political system for decades. Just like the free market system, when there is competition the consumer wins. They inevitably get more choices, new ideas, better services, etc. The same is true in politics.

In a monopolistic environment (political or economic), one sees lack of responsiveness, lowered productivity, reduced choices, a reliance on dogma vs innovation. Hmmm, sounds like the current Democratic party, never mind...

If one looks back over US History, there have been several major parties, though only two 'majors' at any given time, Federalists, Whigs, etc. The current Republican party was born as opposition to Democratic support for slavery (which saw the end of the Whig party). The point is that we need a two party system, but we don't necessarily need either the Democrats or the Republicans.

As it currently appears on the public landscape, the Republican party would seem to have a sound message, and a strong base. The Democrats offer a less coherent picture. It appears that the leadership has been captured by the more extreme left elements. The polarization/demonization of any internal dissent has been reflected in the same practice regarding their external political opponents. This leaves the moderate majority within the party essentially without a voice. So their choice becomes either Democrat first, or they must leave the party.

I have known, and know people who vote party regardless of issues. When asked why, the 'issues' they are site are ones that the Dems have not realistically supported since Kennedy and Johnson were President - they actually align more closely to the GOP, but will not admit to it.

We, the US, need a viable two party system. A system where constructive debate (not demonization and denigration) can search for and find the consensus and compromise that is, in the end, the real bedrock of the US political system. It is telling that many (most??) Democratic voters tended to be voting against Bush rather than for anything the Democratic Party represented. That is a dangerous sign for the longevity of the party, if they care to notice it.

I don't feel that the Democratic party is a viable opposition at the moment. The internal struggle to bring the Dems closer to the mainstream, with its inherent fratacide, may never happen; I certainly have doubts that any current figure within the Party can bring together suffiicent support to take the party back from the extreme fringe that has captured its leadership. What the Democratic party illustrates most clearly is the danger of trying to be everything to everyone.

It seems the most likely outcome, if there is to be a 'new party', would be a split within the Democratic party as the moderate core separated itself from the fringe (as opposed to the rise of a new party from whole cloth). What would they call themselves and how likely is such a fission? Only history will tell us the ultimate outcome of this struggle.

However, there can be no doubt that a political landscape dominated by the GOP is just as dangerous to us as the current weak and polarized Democratic party.

Warming This...

A great post from the Diplomad on the UN, Kyoto, and the global warming debate.

It should be obvious to anyone who has considered the treaty in much detail, that by excluding the third world and China from its restrictions, the real goal of the treaty is to attack the economic foundation of the Western/Industrialized nations in general and the US in particular.

About the best one could say, is that the environmentalists have been hijacked by those governments/groups intent on conducting a covert economic WW. At worst it is a continuation of the "Man is bad, exterminate him (except for me, I'm good)" fantasy world that a lot of the environmentalists seem to reside in. This ignores the fact that the bio density of the Earth is higher than at anytime in recorded history, supporting a higher 'energy' state, and higher productivity than is possible without Man.

Is everything we do good? Of course not, but short of accepting world wide famine and extinctions of Man and other species, the present world cannot be 'unwritten'. I'm reminded of the yearly spectable of the anti-hunting movements trying to stop deer hunting in various locals. The most prominent effort that comes to mind was the overpopulation of deer in Florida a few years back. The game dept had organized a hunt to bring the population back into the support capacity of the available range. The 'antis' found out and were successful in getting an injunction to stop the hunt. The court approved option proposed by the antis was for volunteers/themselves to trap and move the deer to other areas. It was a spectacular failure; if memory serves, less than 8 deer were actually moved (at tremendous cost) and a significant portion of the herd was lost to starvation. Somehow, the natural slow death through starvation and starvation related diseases is supposed to be better the economically productive action of permitted and controlled hunting/herd management.

A similar story seems repeat itself annually in a suburb on the edge of San Antonio, Texas. The deer are 'encouraged' in by some residents feeding, and gardens. The population of deer is the cause of numerous traffic accidents/property damage. Each year, the attempt is made to arrange a hunt to bring the herd under control. Each year a few vocal Bambi brigade members get the hunt stopped in lieu of transporting the deer elsewhere. I don't think they've succeeded yet in moving more than one or two. The problem remains unresolved, and growing.

I think this is due in part to the misplaced view by many environmentalists (and I specifically exclude them from conservationists) that Man is somehow unrelated to and separate from the environment. By pursing this view, all of Man's activities are automatically bad, despite evidence to the contrary.

All that the Dems need to succeed...

Is for there to be an inept, divided, GOP party apparatus. See this insight from Sound Politics, on what may be the best support the Dems can get...

Mother May I???

Thanks to Sound Politics for this...

It seems the Dems think that the military and all the rest of us need more oversight from government, we're just so ignorant...

A world Tax... Proposal from the French

The French PM is proposing a world tax to support 'humane' efforts by the UN. Think this is a joke?

Read more at Shaking Spears...

Dan Rather not a Real Reporter...

Why yes, that just what CBS's internal investigation into Memogate says...

Read more here at RatherBiased.com

Surely Not....

It appears (depending on the accuracy of the background information), that at least some journalists may be cooperating with the terrorists in Iraq to get 'good' footage.

What you say, staged explosions/shooting in Iraq?! Well duh!! Thanks to PoliPundit for this...

ABC tries to ambush President Bush

No, there is no media bias, ignore the man behind the curtain Dorthy...

Dave Limbaugh posts this interesting tidbit about a Brit Hume report.

I was watching this press conference, and (to me) it was apparent that the phrasing of the question, and the way it was asked were meant to put a particular spin on the issue. I thought President Bush handled it well by truthfully stating that he could not offer an opinion on something that he had not seen or heard reported prior to the question. He even gave a slight zing back stating that he would need to see all the details of the event before making a judgement on it. This alone must have been infuriating to MSM, after all how dare anyone doubt their representation of anything??!!

Media Bias, a different pespective...

I've only recently discovered Thomas Sowell; you will see him referenced any many blogs across the Internet.

I've found his writing to be well thought and informative, even though he is that thing that Democrats are completely horrified by - a conservative minority member.

Blackfive quotes his article here and provides some interesting commentary. You can also see Mr. Sowell's article directly here.

I agree with his premise in this article, since I fee strongly that the bias crosses the line in many cases to the point of providing aid to the enemy. I've wondered often on how the people involved could do this, since they must realize that the people/agenda they are aiding is inherently hostile to any type of free press. I've begun to believe that their actions are informed in large part by a "it can't happen to me" attitude often seen in adolescents. They really have not thought about or conceived of the long term consequences to themselves, should the US not only fail in Iraq, but ultimately fall itself.

It may also be part the same, somewhat entertaining, thing that one sees in genealogy research. Seldom do the majority of people involved in this type of delving find that their family descended from working class, destitute peasants from where ever. It seems there is always some link to an elite social status or back door rank.

So to with today's journalists - in the world order with a diminsihed US that they envision, they see themselves as part of the ruling elite. This ignores the lessons of history, when open societies have been suborned, media is the first and most brutally supressed, along with the educated and intellectuals that might form the basis of dissent.

The link between actions and consequence (and the responsibilty for them) seems to be the hardest thing for the current media/liberals to comprehend. I say that with some reserve, since I think it applies to extremist of both liberal and conservative stripe.

Merit has no place in Government...

Yes, you heard that right. Thanks to Amy Ridenour's post here, see the DNC blog here.

Accoding to the Dems, any attempt to promote government employees, particularly those in the Dept. of Homeland Security, on the basis of performance/merit rather than seniority, is a denial of their bargaining rights.

Say again??

I personally, especially since it regards our safety and security, would hope that performance/merit would always be the primary reason for offering promotions. Seniority should only be a factor if all other performance/qualification issues are equal.

This just goes to show that the Dems don't actually want the government to be effective, rather it is an entitlement program for the bureacracy that they want to feed.

Ignorant, Stupid, or a Liar...

I've done enough research on my one (long before the election) on materials from the CBO, Heritage Foundation, and Federnal reserve to know that there is abosutely no factual bases for this news release from Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Minority Leader in the House.

Ignorace is curable, if the victim is willing and has an open mind. Stupidity is incurable, especially if it is willful.

However, I think in this case we are seeing the "Big Lie", a practice made infamous by Hitler. It is based on the simple premise - if you make an outrageously false statement to a small audience with time to reason, you will be called on it. However, if you shout it out in a loud voice to a large audience repeatedly, critical thinking will go by the wayside.

What is really insulting about this is the assumption behind it, that most Americans are too stupid and ignorant to question such statements, that they will accept the most absurd lies if they are made authoritively. I believe this patronizing, elite to the peasant world view is responsible for much of the disconnect the current Democratic leadership.

That the majority of the public has rejected their viewpoint just enforces, to them, the ignorance and stupidity of us peasants. The tyranny of the righteous intellect lies at the end of this primrose path. Do you really want someone like this telling you how to run your life?

CBS Memogate Reprised...

According to this AIM report by Sherrie Gossett, the CBS Memogate with Rather represent a business as usual practice rather than an exception to the rule.

Read her report and come to your own conclusions, but it appears that using discredited, ucorroborated, and questionable sources for sensational stories is a standard practice.

It seems obvious that rating and $$ are a primary driving force, with idealogical goals also adding to the mix. Jouranlism appears to be more about entertainment than factual reporting. Until the advent of the Internet and the explosion of alternate sources, there was no way for the average news consumer to cross check and find the extent to which they were being conned.

MSM should not be suprised that their market share is dropping; they have violated the unwritten convenent with the public by becoming the news instead of just reporting it.

ABC, Where Are You???

"US Troops foil a kidnap attempt in Baghdad". You would think, given the level of reporting on kidnapping and other violence in Iraq, that news that US Troops had foiled a kidnap attempt would be banner news.

That, of course, would suppose that the major media organizations were actually intent on reporting the news factually, and not pursuing another agenda altogether. What is that agenda?

Everyone 'knows' that CBS/Walter Kronkite came back from Vietnam after the Tet Offensive (in which the Viet Cong were completely defeated, their local organizations routed and destroyed) and reported that the war was lost, changing US policy and goals. They just shrugged their shoulders and barely reported the murder of millions during the idealogical 'cleansing' that followed the ignomious withdrawal of the US.

The same goal is apparent in Iraq; to 'spin' the reporting so negatively that the will of the US government and its people to support the people of Iraq will be broken. The 'real' goal has been and continues to be to encourage and force the growth of isolationisma and the withdrawal of the US as a power on the world stage.

So the next time you see one of those smiling, smirking talking heads reporting on how 'bad' the US efforts are to promote (your topic here) for US Interests, give them what they deserve - a big raspberry!! (Hey Peter Jennings, I'm talking to you!!)

With Friends like these...

The results of a year long study of materials provided by the government of Saudi Arabia to mosques in America has revealed some not so suprising results.

Many reports about the royal family of Saudi Arabia have accused them of exporting their dissedents and extreme from of Islam abroad in order to deflect unrest at home.

This article by Katherine Clad at the Washinton Times reveals that documents provided by the Saudi government to US Mosques actively incite expatriate Muslims to

"The literature contained statements from Saudi religious figures appointed to government positions, and it was disseminated through mosques with known associations with the Saudi royal family, the report said. These documents advised Muslims in the United States on how to snub Jews and Christians, for example by refusing to greet them and congratulate them on religious holidays. In addition to demonizing "nonbelievers," documents call Muslims who practice a moderate interpretation of Islam and embrace tolerance traitors deserving of punishment, even death. Says one document: "Those who reside in the land of unbelief out of their own choice and desire to be with the people of that land, accepting the way they are regarding their faith, or giving compliments to them, or pleasing them by pointing out something wrong with the Muslims, they become unbelievers and enemies to Allah and his messenger." One particularly chilling tract urges Muslims to kill any Muslims who convert to another religion. It says of Muslims who accept Judaism or Christianity: "If you do not repent, you are an apostate and you should be killed because you have denied the Koran." This tract, published by the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs and written in Urdu, was collected at the King Fahd Mosque in Los Angeles and it quotes Sheik Bin Uthaimin as preaching this policy. "
Couple this promotion of violence with the acknowledge flow of foreign fighters into Iraq that either Saudi or receiving financial and logistical support from 'friends' within Saudi Arabia, and we a presented with a view of a Country that is actively conducting a covert guerilla war against the US and its interests.

Thomas Moore Law Centers files a friend of the court brief...

Read the details of this here...

I think you'll find this interesting; it should certainly provoke some thought. I've had differing opinions on this type of thing over the years as I've read more and increased my understanding.

Based on the strict language of the Constitution, there is nothing that prevents the display of religious or other material in public places. The Constitution forbids the state from creating and/or sponsoring a religion (aka the Anglican Church of England) or repressing the freedom of expression of religious viewpoints. It does not and never did intend to create a complete separation or absence of God or religion in our Government.

Most of our founding principles derive from or are based on the Judeo-Christian ethic of the Founding Fathers - to divorce our government from its roots is to separate it from that which makes a humane government. To deny the deep religious foundations of our democracy would be to create a 'machine' of a state, not very dissimilar from the Soviet Union or the Communist China.

I've believe that this is part of a deliberate attack on the foundations of our government by the ACLU and other socialist/communist leaning groups. What units the organizations and informs their viewpoint? The perspective that the State is supreme, and the State is a jealous god, and will tolerate no belief in a power higher than the State

Europe, thy name is...

The Defence of Democracy website has this interesting article on attitudes in Europe.

Grading the Social Security debate...

Alan Reynolds, writing at Human Events, continues his article on grading the various 'debaters' on Social Security reform.

If you've been following the debate and trying to verify source documents at all, his results are not going to come as much of a suprise. A consitent theme througout most of this is that the people/organizations that are against PSA's and view raising payroll taxes as necessary to support the current system persist in trying to downplay the coming crises and its likely cost. Yet they jump on the potential 'transition' cost of $1trillion to convert to PSA's (over ten years) even though thats less than one tenth the projected cost of doing nothing (aroun$11 trillion, not counting Medicare).

It is becoming more obvious that the real reason for resisting PSAs has nothing to do with a desire to protect or help retirees and everything with attempt to protect political power bases, even if it means hurting the US and the voters in the process.

I'm sure Senator Kennedy has a used car you could buy, its only been off a bridge once...

Please read these at Villanous Company...

I've enjoyed many of the posts at Villanous Company, beginning back at Jet Noise. These comments today are both entertaining and insightful (IMO).

Media Bias

UN is UN-Hinged

The French Malaise

Washington Election struggle continues

Its interesting to note that to date the only election problems the Dems are interested in has been those where they lost. They are more than slightly anxious in Washington to sweep this entire incident under the rug even as more issues begin to surface in Wisconsin. Thanks to Sound Politics for his post here.

George Soros has crawled out from his rock...

Well I guess George S. decided not to crawl out from under his rock again. This post from Shaking Spears...

Dems Liberals are against minorities - now there's some news..

Thanks to the Darn Floor for this link to a story about a memo being circulated that appears to have originated with the Democratic leadership in the Senate. You should only be suprised if you think the current Democratic leadership actually believes in Democracy and America.

Blogs don't really matter...

Didn't you know that blogs are ineffective and not relevant, and are not having any real impact on MSM? Slate says so and they can't be wrong...can they? See this post at Captains Quarters..

Biting the hand that protects us...

Who said that college students are smart? Or that the liberals/left were going to respect our armed forces this time around? Read this post at Blackfive - actions speak louder than words...

The US overseas

The US is in action on many fronts and with more positive effect (and appreciation) on the ground that MSM will ever let you see. I want to thank BlackFive and the Diplomad for these excellent posts here about voting prepartion in Iraq,
and here and here about our tsunami relief efforts.

More UN taking credit for US/Aussie work...

The Diplomad takes apart the latest glory grabbing by the UN here.

I say it again, stop funding the UN and kick their b*** to France where they will be appreciated.

Hysteria - the Mantra of the Left?

Thanks to the Anchoress for pointing out this story from George Will.

What is interesting about this is its applicability to most of the liberal/left reaction to any 'questioning' of the rightness of their views and vilification of anyone who seeks meaningful debate or discussion.

I believe it is this inherent paternalism, the view that the view elites must decide for the peasant majority, that completely informs the left's world view. This directly contradicts the Founder Fathers belief in the rightness and superiority of the judgement of the many over the few.

Socialism, to the left, is once again the ideal now the the pesky negative image/news of the USSR is gone (the media pretty much ignores the Chinese and North Koreans in this regard). The 'children' of the 60's fell hook line and sinker for a sales pitch that wouldn't sell water to a man dying in the desert.

Like the Marxist in the USSR, and the Maoist, etc., the plan/idea can't be flawed, so it must be people. They just need more indoctrination to see the rightness of the cause.

Don't ever doubt that the left, as currently constituted, is the enemy of democracy. This was not always so, and hopefully, will not always be so. But as long as they preach of an ignorant majority, they believe in the tyranny of the self righteous intellect. A no bloodier, cold hearted tyrant has ever ruled. Just look at the atrocities, the killing fields in Cambodia, the re-education camps in Vietnam, the list goes on through out recent modern history and back. Paternalistic rule by an elite over an imagined 'peasantry' will always result in atrocity, since they really know best...

Who are the children here...

See this story at Everything I know is Wrong. I wish I could say this is an isolated incident, but we are seeing more criminilaztion of children's 'normal' behavior everywhere.

Everyone is so frightened of another Columbine, that children are now seen automatically as potential mass murders for exhibiting normal childish behavior. What is horribly frightening in these incidents is the absolute abdication of adult judgement and responsibility by the supposed 'adults' in charge.

Children are and should be expected to behave as children, showing poor judgement and over reacting to minor things. It is part of the growing and learning process. This same behavior in adults, and to the extent the excusing of this to the extent that we allow it to criminalize normal behaviors is ludicrous and criminal in itself. There will never be a child who 'fits' a mold, like snowflakes, they are all different. Taking these laws literally and substituting the written languate of the law for adult interpretion, judgement, and involvement indicates a complete abdication of moral responsibility on the part of the adults involved.

Are there monsters out there? Yes, of course, we must not excuse or blind ourselve to them. But neither should we allow adult responsibility and judgement to be hijacked by paternilistic laws that seek to impossibly forsee every eventuality and circumstance. The law is a tool, a vehicle for civilized conduct and the not the driver of the vehicle.

Judges running our schools???

See this article from Human Events by Phyllis Schlafly. The one point she fails to mention is that the quality of education by most students today is far less than that experienced by myself from 30 years ago.

There has been a 'dumbing' down of our K-12 system to such an extent that even honors students are having problems with anything other than remedial classes their first years in college (if they go that far). At the same time, the NEA is fighting tooth an nail to avoid and eliminate any system that would attempt to objectively evaluate the performance of teachers and teaching programs.

If you want to revisit the '60s flower children, you need go no further than most teaching colleges. Things like objective testing, measurement, and constructive competition among students are actively discouraged. Under no circumstances, is a student to be told that their perfomance isn't up to standards, as if that is any help to them in the 'real world'. Critical thinking, a particular skill/teaching goal of many of the teachers when I grew up, now seems unheard of. It something that many of the teachers themselves seem incapable of, much less teaching to their students.

These same 'liberals' want to make little carbon copies of our children at the same time. Discussion/debate of ideas on a logical basis seems gone from our classrooms in many areas. Government mandated projects/programs with little relation to actual teaching take class time while basic skills are given short shift. Recess, the one place where children can burn their energy just be is given even short shift in these 'plants'. Children by their nature are active, the very act of growing give them a metabolism that is running much faster than adults. No child can sit in a classroom for 6 to 8 hours and maintain their concentation and learning ability. They need the physical activity to maintain their focus. Is it any wonder that schools are so enthusiastic about diagnosing AD and tranquilizing the children? In many cases, the problem is not the child, but the environment. This same lack of outlet for their energy and drive (a lack of responsbility/accountability on them, parents, and faculty) is part of what drives the apparent increase in violence in many schools.

The plain fact is that our children spend the majority of their waking hours in school under supposed adult supervision. If they do not receive discipline, up to and including capitol (or licks as we called them), at school, then they will receive no discipline at all. Without learning accountability, how can they learn restraint, judgement, and become contributing members of society?

In Texas, spending on schools has increased dramatically in many areas. Yet, most of the visible spending (new administration buildings, auditoriums, etc) have little to do with the actual process of teaching. What has been seen is a growth in the bureacracy and administration that far outweighs anything spent on the students and their teaching. US k-12 students continue to be out performed by students in other countries, with no indication that spending is affecting this outcome at all. In Texas, most schools have to hold special classes to teach students to pass the test given to measure student learning performance. Keep in mind there is nothing special about these tests, they measure simple math, reading, and english skills as a student progresses through school, with the goal of minimal skill levels necessary to successfully hold a job when they graduate.

The question that no one is asking, is what is wrong with the basic cirricula and teaching materials that they cannot provide this? Instead of fixing the root cause (poor cirricula, teaching standards, and abysmal text books), schools continue to treat the symptom - poor test performance with out special preparation. It is apparent that no one is overcome with critical thinking skills.

In 1991, there was a new paper article discussing the Texas education system in general and the Houson ISD in particular. Houston ISD, then as now, is plagued by underperformance for the dollar spent, and has been hit by scandals regarding teaching and test measures. What was particularly interesting to me was a small side note - the HISD administrative organization was larger than the combined school administrative organizations of Western Europe. I never checked the veracity of this statement, but if true, then the biggest handicap/hurdle our education system faces is its entrenched bureacracy.

One more small item to note. Anyone who has children or been around them much, realizes that most have an unbounded curiuosity. It is a cliche that a child's incessant "Why's" can drive most adults to distraction. It is bred into us, since being curious, asking questions and learning as fast as possible is a survival positive traight. In other words, most of us are born wanting and needing to learn. Think on that, then wonder at how powerful a negative experience and re-inforcment must be used on our children to overcome eon's of instinct to want and desire to learn. When was the last time your child said, " I learned a lot today", when talking about school?

Even our popluar media contributes to this 'conspiracy' by giving nothing but negative or denigrating examples of 'geeks' who like and actively pursue learning while idolizing the 'popular' air heads or non-thinkers. I can think without trying of 'teen' movies where school and teachers where inherently bad and the enemy. I have to struggle to find a positive example of the same.

To paraphrase a news magazine article I read over a decade ago; " ...if what we see in todays' education system had been imposed externally, we would have considered it an act of war..."

It hasn't gotten any better...

Abortion rights - time to let Americans have their say?

Back before the pro-life/pro-abortion 'debate' was co-opted by the gender aligned (all men are bad) feminist movement, there was actually some real debate and discussion of the issue going on the news magazines and other 'news' sources in America.

As a member of a in-class debate team in the early/mid 70's, I had the fortune/misfortune to have to argue both sides of this issue. The one point that both sides agreed on at the time, was that the decision of the Supreme Court effectively stopped 'public' discourse on the subject. As a consequence the issue remained(s) an unresolved, untreated, festering wound within our political process. In effect, the American public was denied their right to debate, discuss, and reach an agreement, denied by an arbitrary, activist judicial body intent on creating new law.

An article in one of the news magazines of the time pointed out that the French (forgive me for using them as an example), had avoided judicial intervention and reached a legislated solution supported by the majority of their citizenry. As a result, abortion was a relative non-issue to them. The lack of resolution to our internal debate, wrought by judicial intervention, was pointed out as the primary cause to the increasingly acrimonious atmosphere surrounding this debate. The sense of 'helplessnes' of the body politic before this judicial 'trump' was (and has) driving the issue/debate to the extremists on both sides of the issue.

A recent article reveals that the original plaintiff is now filing to have the decision overturned, saying she was misrepresented and misinformed by her legal counsel. My own views on this issue have changed over time, as they should as one gains both perspective, experience, and new information. I feel strongly that the judicially interrupted political discussion and search for consensus needs to be resumed, if the topic is not already too poisoned for that. For this reason, I hope the Supremes do decide to overturn their earlier decision and put this back in the arean of public debate and legislation.

That way, when the decision/legislation is made, it will be the decision of the American people, whom the founders trusted above all others, and not by 9 judical tyrants, secluded from review or rebuke.

Pompous Windbags...

Another belch from the harbor in Massachussets...by Senator Kennedy.

FYI, in case the media missed it, OJ was not the most prominent 'rich' citizen to use his position and fortune to avoid murder/manslaughter charges.

It is interesting, in sick and pathetic sort way, to hear both Kennedy and Kerry carry on about the war in Iraq. Yet their statements in the public record leave no doubt that they read and agreed with the same CIA analysis that the Administration used and is now being vilified for.

The true target of their ire should be the intelligence agencies (where Bush is trying to overhaul their politicized management) who provided such erroneous information. But wait, that might mean they would have to hold themself responsible for trying (and in many cases succeeding) in gutting the budgets of these same organizations. Can't have that now can we...

UPDATE:

Perspective on Sen. Kennedy's speech by an Iraqi-American (thanks to PowerLine).

Liberal Bias in the media

Cliff Kincaid writes an interesting article on Media Bias for the Media Monitor column at AIM.

One interesting statement he makes concerns Susan Songtag:
" Srdja Trifkovic of Chronicles magazine pointed out that Sontag had a strange definition of courage. She was paying tribute to those willing to sacrifice their lives in order to kill others. But real courage, he points out, means doing the right thing in the face of fear. Sontag didn't know right from wrong. That's the real logic that escapes David Gates of Newsweek, and that's what he should have said about Sontag's statement. "

It seems that many extreme left/liberals have this problem; they seem capable of providing rationalizations of the most horrific behavior possible. Yes, there are nuances, or shades of grey to many things in life. Yet to say there is nothing that is inherently evil or wrong (except being a conservative it seems), is being disingenuous at best and deliberately misleading at the worst.

But then again, that is their apparent goal, to beguile and mislead, and above all avoid any real discussion on the 'merits' of their postitions.

9/11 2001 - The start of WWIV?

It has been postulated on several blogs and in some think tanks that the US and Western civilization has been in an almost continuous state of World War since the end of WWII.

WWII marks the last of the 'classic' wars, focused on direct confrontation on a world wide level. The lessons that both sides learned is unrestrained military warfare in modern times is so devestating to the infrastructure of the societies on both side, that any victory may be Phyrric in nature; better only because losing is worse. The world survived and rebounded from WWII primarily because the US economy was intact and capable of 'driving' the recovery of the rest of the world despite their devestated support structures and industry.

WWIII, consequently, was a war by proxy and economic engines. There were casualties, 'brush wars' were fought, but the main protaganists fought behind the scenes. The goal was to drive their adversary politically and economically into ruin. It took decades, but the US and the West eventually defeated the USSR in the shadow version of World War.

WWIV would seem to be a religious war, a resumption of expansion of militaristic Islam across the world. History will be the ultimate arbiter of whether this is true and who the victor is.

However, the current climate is the West/US of nay saying anyone who may voice a concern or cautioning note is doing a dis-service to everyone. The virtual 'no touch' rule in any discussion of the current activist violent bent of Islam simply serves to construct a cover under which actions against the interest of the West are proceeding.

This is not to say that Judeo/Christianity is without its darker history. However, Christianity has undergone (and continues to under go) a reformation with the overall result of purging these anachronisms. Islam has undergone no such reformation, and enthusiastically condemns to death anyone who dares to question any of its tenets. Speaking out of the other side of their mouth, they then state that no one takes the more vicous tenets literally.

Religous wars are the most bloody and violent of all as we've all seen in the opening skirmishes of this one through the Balkans. I do not pretend to be an expert on Islam, but I do judge the intent of its practioners based on their actions. There has been no statements of outrage, horror, or indignation at the atrocities committed in Islam's name. If anything, there has been an astoudning quiet, or even statements of support, weak rationalizations justifying behaviour that Hitler and his henchmen would have approved of as well. No one will ever know the true details of the slaughter rooms found in Fallujah, but it is telling that most of the horror was expressed in the West, even though most media tried to not report on it.

The Romans said it best - "Silence is assent"; by their silence the leadership of Islam is expressing their true goals.

Jihad Watch has some of the most detailed and researched information on this, so read more there.

Social Security Reform - AARP being dishonest?

I've read and exchanged correspondence with the AARP on the Social Security Reform issue. The best I can say about their stance is that they think that PSA's are fine for AARP management and bad for everyone else. Based on their information, no one should ever invest in a 401K or Keogh retirement account.

I have previously pointed out links directly to Federal Reserve studies and other research that put the lie to much of the scare tactics/information being promulgated by both the Democrats and AARP.

Howerver, this article by Merril Matthews at Human Events, does a far better job than I did is taking apart the Dems/AARPs argument on each point.

Has anyone noticed a certain parallelism here? If there is an issue that the administration, conservatives, etc (pick your group/constituency) has acted on as an immediate priority, then the Left/Dems proclaim it to be an impending crises. Howerver, let one of their opponents actually propose a workable, feasible solution, then suddenly the status quo is just fine.

Read the article and come to your own conclusions. No matter which way you decide, let your congressmen know.

Overtime Pay - No longer meeting its original purpose?

This article for AIM by Marion Edwyn Harrison, points out that overtime has wandered far from its origins. Many hourly paid workers now consider it an entitlement as part of their job. This is far different than its original purpose, which was to encourage employers to hire more workers instead of working their existing workforce longer hours.

Mr. Harrison make some valid points about general productivity as work hours increase, that I can confirm from my own experience over the years. Knowing how closely most management teams monitor productivity vs labor expenses, I don't imagine that much of this is news to many employers. So what changed? Why are overtime laws no longer an effective inducement to hiring? Is overtime no longer an effective means for incentive to full employment?

I believe, from my personal experience, that our tax laws and workers compensation requirements may be partly to blame. The overtime equation itself has not been updated since the law was enacted by FDR, which may be another significant factor.

I grew up in a self employed business, in a semi-rural area (so there were other factors at work). In my father's business, my first memories are of a relatively large work force (for the area) of 3 to 4 men that worked for him on a continuing basis, and part time fillers as necessary. However, as I grew up, the work force shrank, so that by the time I was in High School, there was just one other employee.

The amount of work had not decreased, but the hours worked had increased, so that having an entire Sunday off was something more unusual than not. The thing(s) that had changed were the costs of having an employee. At the time that the labor laws concerning overtime were implemented, the hourly wage was the most significant cost of having an employee. Other costs (medical/liability insurance, etc) were a relatively minor expense and there was not a significant amount of administrative overhead. In this environment, increasing the hourly labor cost by half would be, and was, a significant incentive to add an employees vs working the workforce longer hours, if such overtime expense could be controlled or minimized by the additional workers.

Fast forward to today (or even 30 years ago). Now, the hourly wage is a relatively 'minor' piece of the overall expense of having an employee. The administrative overhead to track and maintain the required records for SS/Income tax withholding, Workers Comp and Liability costs can easily double the real expense of an employee to an employer. In this environment it can be, and often is, more cost effective to work an employee two or three times the federally mandated work week (40 hours) than it is to add additional employees.

Some employers have gotten around this by having more employees, but working them all at part time hours, thus avoiding many of the 'expenses' that are required for full time employees. Others hire workers as 1099 employees; essentially as independent contractors rather than full time employee, putting most of the administrative onus on the employee.

Currently, since our 'real' national employement is almost at full theoretical utilization, this isn't a crises question. But the issue does remain - if overtime is no longer fulfilling its intended function, then what can be done to restore that function?

One option may be to update the overtime equation (say to 2x or 2.5x) so that the hourly compensation for overtime once again becomes the primary expense. However, this option may tend to slow down the economy by increasing the overall labor expense without providing any increased productivity - perhaps actually decreasing productivity.

The 'ideal' solution would be to reduce the 'hidden' costs of having employess so that the hourly wage returned to its 'normal' proportion of the expense in having employees. This would entail a massive overhaul of the tax, workers comp, and liability systems to reduce these overhead and administrative burdens. It is not clear to me how this could be achieved in a coordinated fashion so that the desired end result could be achieved. A disjointed, piecemeal approach could do more harm than good.

Any changes to this system would likely be fought tooth and nail by organized labor and other groups that view overtime as an entitlement program or 'right' for the employee. If FDR could see what many of his ideas have evolved into, I doubt he would be terribly happy...

Social Security Reform - Redux

Amy Ridenour has some analysis and links to a new study on Social Security reform. It appears the problem may actually be worse than even President Bush is alluding to. It seems that most of the recent analyses used in discussing Social Security reform may have excluded Medicare.

The prognosis for these entitlement programs growth as a proportion of the federal budget is not new. I remember reading essentially the same forecast of growth and warnings about the effect on our economy and ability to compete globally back in the '70s. If I remember correctly, it was forecast that between Social Security and Medicare these programs would 'own' over 50% of the Federal budget within 30 - 40 years. While the timing may be off, the prediction is still valid.

Nothing has changed, since no one has been willing to touch the '3rd rail'. The Democratic Party leadership has been very effective in utilizing scare tactics to prevent anyone from doing anything but growing the system.

Read Amy's post here, and Robert Samuelson's article in the Washington Post here.

What are our alternatives? Is there a workable solution that doesn't kill our economy in the process? Along the lines of stealing shamelessly, could the Medicare itself be changed fundamentally? Instead of being an insurance and medical care program, would it be more effective to utilize taxpayers contributions in the same was at the proposed PSA's for Social Security?

Instead of transferring money from the taxpayer, to a fund which then transfers it to beneficiaries with no overall 'work' done by the funds in the brief interim, have the funds instead act as a supplemental/taxpayer designated premium for a medical/long term health care insurance provider of their choice.

This would eliminate Medicare/Medicaid as a 'competitor' to the private market, should eliminate a significant amount of bureaucratic overhead, and put the funds in a private sector system which has far more and better experience than the government in utilizing such funds for both economic return (and thereby acting the grow the economy instead of acting as a drag on it), and in working with the payee to tailor insurance and care to suit the needs of the payee.

I'm not talking about an HMO type setup, but more along the lines of a PPO. I prefer the PPO paradigm since it still tends to maximize the benefits of a 'shared' user base while leaving care decisions more in the hands of the doctor/patient. I'm painting in broad strokes here, so a lot of details would need to be worked out. However, in thinking along these lines, I think this may provide a better long term answer than the current system and the inevitable brick wall toward which it is heading.

Update on Social Securty Reform:

Dick McDonald discusses flap in SS Administration Union employees - seems they think the PSA Thrift Fund accounts they enjoys as government employees are a bad idea for the public. Read more here.

Bad news reporting - a deliberate strategy??

Read this AIM report on our troops response during a recent celebrity tour. It raises some interesting points I think...

One can make the point that today's journalists don't have the background and training that WWII era reporters did, which is one reason that may explain their 'slant' on what and how they report.

However, Walter Conkrite doesn't have that excuse, which would indicate his reporting on the Tet Offensive was a deliberate misrepresentation with a specific (and anti-American) goal. This could indicate a long term strategy in place in certain quarters of CBS and elsewhere.

But that is just too paranoid.... Isn't it??

Who the real desecrators are... no suprises here!

As usual, MSM has done it normal outstanding job of not reporting who is actually conducting most of the attacks/desecration on Islamic historic and religous sites.

Read more here from Sherri Gosset at AIM...

Observations on the 109th Congress...

Paul M. Weyrich from AIM posts these observations and comparisons of the new 109th Congress. He is succint as always and very much on point.

I will add one other observation about todays politicians that has also been noted elsewhere. Whether or not you agreed with the older generation of politicians that Paul discusses, for the most part you find that many went into public service out of a sense of public duty and service. Most were erudite and well spoken, and were good verbal and written communicators. As an example I use our former (retired) Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D. Texas). I exchanged correspondence with him on several issues; while we did not always agree, he offered intelligent and well thought out arguments to support his view point. We could, in fact, agree to disagree and I have nothing but the profoundest respect for him.

The same cannot be said of many of the 'new' generation politicians, and I have to agree with Paul on many of his observations about both Congressmen and Senators. A woe to anyone that gets between them and a camera - it is safer walking across a freeway (ok, maybe not much safer ;-) ).

Be Always Vigilant...

Michelle Malkin posts this story about continuing (but unreported by MSM) probes/attempted attacks in our transport system.

What is more compelling, is the pattern that appears to be growing from the ancedotal stories that seems to indicate inside help by service company employees.

Read the whole thing...

Social Security Reform - an Honest Debate?

The debate on Social Security reform is something that the Democrats have never been overly fond of. Its not that they don't like the Social Security Program, after all it is a government entitlement program and thus synonymous with Big Government, a core Democratic platform.

No, the problem is that when there is an attempt at true discussion, it appears the Democrats idea is more of an emotionally charged screaming attack, than true reasoned discourse. Burned in my mind is the T.V. image of an apoplectic Sen. Kenedy, who appeard on the verge of a stroke, voice suffused with rage, vowing that the Democrats were going to take Medicare back from the Republicans. The source of his tantrum? The fact that President Bush and the Republicans had dared to pass a change to the Medicare program, that gave beneficiaries a new prescription drug benefit. After all, how dared the Republicans give something to those in need - they acted as if this program was to actually benefit the American people and not the sole property of the Democratic Party.

We now see much of the same in respect to Social Security reform. The same talking heads, Senators, Congressmen, and reporters who were, just prior to election, bemoaning how the Social Security system was on the verge of collapse from Repuplican cold heartedness and mismanagement, are now saying that the system is just fine. How dare the Republicans/President Bush try to fix something before it is an actual disaster, especially to offer a solution that would reduce Joe Citizens dependence on the American Government. Such gall...

Alan Reynolds has written an article for Human Events that attempts to grade the different 'debaters' on SS Reform. AARP gets an F, as one may surmise for attempting to argue both sides of private investment accounts at the same time (OK for Us elites, bad for average citizen - you're just too dumb).

Bruce Bartlett writes for the NCPA about the looming crises and growing productivity Gap for the EU. In his report, he references a paper by Edward Prescott for the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. This paper attempts to directly address the productivity issues between the US and the EU. In doing so, he points out where and how Social Security reform can work with minimal transition expense. He also addressed the core differences between the American and EU economic models and the impact on living standards (the EU is significantly below the US).

The actual cause of the problem with Social Security is pretty simple, but no one talks much about it (for one reason, its too late for the responsible generations to do anything about it). Social Security, when it was first put in place, had about 13 workers for every beneficiary. Now the ratio is down to 3:1 and will be approaching 1:1 within two decades. The system will be income negative before that point.

The reason? We, the Baby Boomers (I'm part of the last year class considered to be part of the Baby Boom generations), did not have enough children to insure our own support. We forgot, or never learned, that children are both the future for themselves and for us as we age. Like good tires on your car, children are the best insurance we have, both personally and for our Nation. I say that we forgot - however, the Democratic leadership has no problem pushing Social Security problems off on our grand kids instead of dealing with it now.

We, for those that had families, averaged 2 - 2.5 kids. Taking into account mortality rates, and those that did not have children, the required rate to 'maintain' the Social Security system in its current form appears to be more on the order of 4 - 5 children. If we pass nothing else on to the next and future generations, it should be this lesson. That Children really are the future, and not just a glib cliche for an advertising campaign.

There are other demographic impacts, some that are particularly significant in light of the current threats we face from Islamic terrorism. But that's a subject for a different post.

Our deep and heartfelt Condolences to The Anchoress

Please pray for The Anchoress and her family at this hour of sorrow for them. Her brother's long struggle is over...

Just the facts Mam, just the facts...

Hat tip to the Darn Floor for this one...

This story is so factually inaccurate that I'm surprised that it made it past any editorial review. Or perhaps that is because it didn't get any editorial review. It takes only a minimal amount of research to learn the US (in the form of USAID and the US Navy), along with the Australians, Indians, and Japanese were the first to be on-site in the region providing food, water, medical care, and beginning the process of rebuilding infra structure.

Despite the UN's pronouncement in its news briefings, the reality is that the UN has yet to deliver any material or substantive (ie helpful) organizational aid to the victims of this disaster. It has, however, arranged for numerous meetings, reserved the entire first class suites of the five star hotels and arranged 24/7 catering for its staff. Of course I understand there are some hard feelings - the noise for the US and Australian helicopters flying by while delivering aid is disruptive for their meetings.

These errors of fact (and they are not minor since they provide the entire basis for the article) are insulting to the victims, our allies in aid, and in particular to the selfless sacrifice of our men and women in the armed forces and aid organizations who responded so readily and rapidly to this disaster. Their only mistake appears to be that their main focus has been on helping those in need instead standing in front of the cameras making self aggrandizing statements. How selfish and stingy of them.

This paper and in particular Eloise F. Chandler owes those personnel a deep and humble apology. I have no real hope that such will ever be delivered; the more important agenda here was to denigrate and bash President Bush, who is also owed an apology by the author. Criticize if you will, but please base it on the facts and not on reality as you wish it was.

I will point out one source from the US State Department; there are others from Australia and Japan as well. But I think I should expect even The Capitol Times to be able to Google search that far (for a change).

http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/

Do Liberals/the left fear and hate Happiness

I found this article today and it got me to remembering/thinking. I know that perceptions shape our 'reality' to a greater degree than most realize or imagine.

Think on this, haven't you had a day you started out with a negative attitude and the whole day seemed to reflect the same until 'something' caused you to do an about face? Then looking at the same 'scenery', you saw it wasn't so bad after all? (And vice versa).

I not a comfortable 'joiner' or follower, so I'm always hesitant to align myself with any particular political or other agenda. I also feel that politic beliefs and religion are much the same in some respects and in polite society should not be discussed too openly lest said society cease to be polite - blogs being a usually safe exception.

Take the following observations into consideration before following the links to the article.
Less than 12% of the people who list their profession as media or journalistic based also classify themselves as conservative.

Media reporting, on any subject, almost without exception will focus on or find the most negative aspects of said story to report. If there is a choice between positive spin or negative spin, negative will rule in most instances.

If your profession, your entire work/life style encourages or requires a negative 'outlook', it will be a accelerating cycle of positive feedback; there is no inherent self correction to this cycle.
People who are inherently negative and/or depressed (take you choice) are VERY resistant to anything that would disturb that world view (been there, done that). To realize that the world is not all shades of black is a painful, no, excruciating realization. People, as a rule, are pain adverse, especially when it comes to questioning their own precepts. Negativism is self re-enforcing to a horrendous degree.

If this is the media/journalistic world view that is responsible for presenting your (organization/town/county/country) to the world, what do you think that presentation will look like? Can you, as the public, ever expect to see an accurate, or realistic presentation of the 'world' by such organizations?

Is it any surprise then, that bloggers and the internet are viewed with such alarm and fear by Mainstream Media?

Both liberals and media, are almost completely uniform in their negative view of America, American Voters, and of Americanism (i.e., the rightness of people to decide for themselves, democracy, and individual freedom). There is no sense of optimism, or of possibilities, rather a pervading sense of angst. Over this election cycle, and my continuing interest and research into blogging and the media, there is one almost universal statement among 'liberals' who now consider themselves to be conservative: "I was tired of the negativity" or " I was attracted to the optimism, the sense of possibilities in the conservative dialog."

If you examine and boil off all the Democratic rhetoric, you will find it is based on two overriding yet contradictory presumptions: The US is corrupt, corrupts all that it touches, and all its efforts are doomed to failure. (Quagmire anyone??). In the same breath, socialism (i.e. centralized big government) is good, individual choice/responsibility is bad - we are all victims.

Think about this the next time someone tries to tell you that the US has no business on the world stage, yet in the same breath tries to tell you that the answer to your 'problem' is another or bigger government program.

Read on this further by a psychologist who made a study of this.

The US should give the UN what it deserves...

And what it deserves, in my opinion, is the invitation to move it useless bureacratic 'appendages', lock stock and barrel to somewhere that it will be properly appreciated. Say Paris for example...

If you didn't notice, I can't seem to rouse much enthusiasm for the UN. The Oil for Food scandal, and the general lack of accountability, plus the overt anti-US stance of most of its representatives have pretty much finished any willingness on my part to give this dead, defunct, League of Nations look alike a second chance.

Then I discovered the Diplomad, and started seeing how the UN operates on the 'frontline' as it were; or really as it isn't. What I found was that the reality appears for worse than I imagined. Read more of this excellent source and blogger here. I believe you will agree with me.

Does this mean I don't believe in the necessity of an Internation organization? Absolutely not; I just believe it needs to be effective and should represent interests that actually promote the current US interests, or at least not be a fount of the current left/liberal incessesant preaching of anti-Americanism, when America is one the only countries that consitently attempts to help other countries to be self supporting as dynamic economies and not as third world 'victims'. I think the initial tsunami response coalition of countries that actually got aid on the ground and moving to those that needed it would be a good place to start.

After all, membership in the UN, like our Constitution, was not intended to be a suicide pact.

Internal Threats to US Sovereignty??

There appear to be two initiatives in progress that have the potential to have significant negative impacts on the primacy of US sovereignty.

The first, and possibly more serious threat, appears to be judicial activism by members of the US Supreme court that would usurpt the legislative authority of Congress and at the same time place the intentions of the Founding Fathers and Consitution in a secondary role in determining US law. What would be the primary consideration you ask? The consensus of the judicial and legislative/executive precedents of the rest of the world.

You might think this is impossible, however a televised discussion yesterday between Justice Scalia and Justice Brenner revieled that at least one Supreme Court Justice (Brenner) feels that this should be to goal and working practice of the Supreme Court. While Justice Scalia does a good job of exposing the 'fuzzy' thinking behind this premise, it is just a discussion. Therefore, one must assume that this intention informs a large part of Justice Brenner's decision making process and probably that of other Justices in this and lower courts. Powerline has an excellent comment and feedback on this topic.

Another avenue of 'attack' is the LOST treaty (Law of the Sea Treaty). This treaty has the potential to subordinate US control and maritime interests to those of a collegial body of a mostly anti-American nature known as the International Seabed Authority. Ronald Reagan refused to sign this treaty because of this percieved threat. Yet it is again being brought forwared by Senator Richard Lugar. Read more about this on the Accuracy In Media site.

And don't forget to write you senators!!

The US is loosing it Economic Edge?

According to this article from the Heritage Founation here: In the Heritage Foundations Index of Economic Freedom, the United States, for the first time since in the index began publication in 1995, is no longer among the top 10 freest economies in the World. Why is this important?

Economic Freedom, key to the ability of everyman to realize his/her dreams through work and effort, has been the bedrock of the US's economic supremacy in the world economy. While still a long way from the former USSR command economy, this change in status may indicate that the US is sliding toward a more socialist model economy instead of one based on the ideals of the free market place. We've already seen the catastrophic results of command economies in the USSR and the relative underperformance of socialist hybrid economies that we see in the EU. I feel strongly that the direction espoused by Senator Kenedy's recent speech to the National Press Club, would move us even further from the forefront of the World's economic leaders.

The Heritge site has some suggestions about what may be necessary turn around this trend here.

Hello Everyone!

Hello and welcome to the start of my personal Blog. I don't pretend to be a particular expert on anything. However I do value civil open discourse (some would say argument) and I feel strongly about many issues facing America today.

As time permits, I will share my thoughts and opinions with you and point you toward sources that I find helpful or otherwise improtant and informative. At the same time, I hope to learn much from the postings of readers here.

I will not tolerate abusive or insulting input and will not allow this site to be used for spammers. I will also be providing links to other Blogs that I find entertaining, informative, thought provoking, or some combination of the above.

I hope you enjoy this site and this journey!!

Light a Candle...

Monday, January 31, 2005